LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

HL Deb 14 March 1929 vol 73 cc521-612

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2 [Special provisions as to functions of Poor Law authorities in respect of infant life protection and vaccination]:

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:— (c) the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to administrative schemes, acquisition of land, and accounts and audit, shall not apply as respects the functions aforesaid. The noble Earl said, My Lords, this is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. The effect of Clause 2 is to hand over functions under Part I of the Children Act, 1908, to maternity and child welfare authorities and to convert functions relating to vaccination into public health functions. Consequently it is convenient that these two sets of functions should not be dealt with as transferred functions in the administrative schemes to be made under Clause 4 of the Bill; and similarly that the provisions of Part I of the Bill relating to acquisition of land (Clause 9) and to accounts and audit (Clause 17) should not apply to them.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, at end insert the said now paragraph.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Power to combine councils for special purposes]:

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 15, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:

Administrative schemes.

4. The council of every county and county borough shall prepare, and within six months after the commencement of this Act submit to the Minister, a scheme (hereinafter referred to as an administrative scheme) of the administrative arrangements proposed to be made for discharging the functions transferred to the council under this Part of this Act:

Provided that the Minister may on the application of a council extend the time within which a scheme is to be submitted if he is satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such extension.

LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, after "Act," immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "and any similar functions under any of the Acts set out in Clause 5 hereof." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the explanatory Memorandum of this Bill points out that the Poor Law will be transferred to authorities which already provide hospitals "which overlap similar provision made by boards of guardians for persons who are destitute," and it goes on later to say that— One object … is to secure that existing institutions shall be used and developed to the best advantage. This involves the setting apart of particular institutions in the county to serve particular classes of inmates for particular purposes … The organisation of the institutional service on these lines can only be undertaken by a body viewing the needs of county as a whole. I fail to see how the Minister can judge whether a council has envisaged the whole problem when the Minister has only to deal with the discharge of the transferred Poor Law functions. The scheme is not required to view the needs of the whole area so as to set up administrative machinery which will secure the best use and development of existing institutions. It is limited to machinery for the discharge of the transferred functions.

Clause 5 makes a recommendation, and only a recommendation, that the council should arrange to operate as little as possible through the new Public Assistance Committee and as much as possible through the existing health committee, but the explanatory Memorandum recognises that in some areas, for one reason or another, Poor Law may continue to be administered under the Poor Law Acts. In such circumstances rationalisation of the hospital services may surely call for a transfer of some functions from the health committee to the Public Assistance Committee, but the Bill does not provide for this. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lord ships if I speak now of similar Amendments that I have on the Paper to Clauses 6 and 7. My Amendment to Clause 4 proposes to require that the administrative scheme shall deal with the discharge of transferred functions and of any other similar functions now performed under various Public Health Acts. In Clause 6 the Bill allows the council to delegate public assistance functions to the health committee but not vice versa. Without complete freedom to redistribute the functions between the new and old committees a council may find itself seriously hampered in preparing a scheme which would dovetail Poor Law and public health functions into one whole, which is the end in view.

For similar reasons I desire to insert the same words in Clause 7 and, with your Lordships' consent, I would make the same insertion in the new clause, dealing with consultation with voluntary hospitals, which has only appeared this morning. The principle of consultation has been admitted but the wording of the new clause which has been put down by the noble Earl limits the consultation to hospital accommodation provided in discharge of the transferred functions. That would mean that voluntary hospitals and the medical profession need not be consulted on anything but a limited portion of the field. The new clause would leave the council free to make provision for extra hospital accommodation without any consultation if the proposed new institution were not required for discharging Poor Law functions. If overlapping is to be prevented, I think it is essential that the requirement of consultation should cover all hospitals whether provided in discharge of the transferred functions or of similar functions under Public Health Acts. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 39, after ("Act") insert ("and any similar functions under any of the Acts set out in Clause 5 hereof").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, before I say anything more I should like to apologise to your Lordships. I was in the Lobby and did not know that the Bill had been called on. I am afraid that I kept your Lordships waiting and I must apologise for any inconvenience your Lordships were put to. As regards this Amendment I think the noble Lord must he under a slight misapprehension as to the effect of the present Acts. There is really no necessity for the words which he seeks to add to the clause because the arrangements under the special Acts do not need to be included in the scheme, for the reason that, where a declaration is made of intention to deal with the destitute under one or other of the special Acts, all that results is to bring a certain number of additional persons within the ambit of a scheme which has been in nearly every case approved by the Ministry of Health and is in full working order. These schemes exist and all that happens is that people previously treated under the Poor Law will be treated under these schemes, and I do not think that the Amendment is necessary. The existing system is in full working order and can be trusted to carry out the duties satisfactorily.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 7:

Guardians committees and sub-committees.

7.—(1) In the case of a county the administrative scheme shall provide— (a) for the division of the county into areas, each area consisting of one or more districts, and for the constitution for each such area of a local sub-committee of the public assistance committee (to be called the guardians committee of the area) consisting of not more than thirty-six nor less than twelve members: (iii) the determination of the amount to be paid by any recipient of relief, or the persons liable for his maintenance, towards reimbursing the council the amount expended by them on his relief;

EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to substitute "eighteen" for "thirty-six." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment not with a view to pressing it but really in order to get some information as to the constitution and working of these committees, and if the noble Earl would not mind following me, so that I may ascertain whether I correctly apprehend the scheme, I think perhaps he may be able to satisfy me. Under Clause 7 the administrative scheme is to provide for the division of the county into areas. Those areas may be, I think, one or more of the previous Poor Law unions, and for each of those areas there is to be a local sub-committee of the Public Assistance Committee, which is to be called the guardians committee. Do I understand that with the exception of the twelve co-opted members of the guardians committee the Public Assistance Committee will consist of all the twenty-four, or less, out of each area, that are appointed to form these guardians committees? If so, that would lead to the Public Assistance Committee consisting of one hundred or more members as I gather.

Then as to the guardians committee, your Lordships will notice that in paragraph (a), where I have put down my Amendment, it is to consist of not more than thirty-six nor less than twelve members. Those, I understand, are to be provided by the scheme, and in this way: you will take the county councillors for the district, naming, I suppose, the division that they represent, and district councillors or some of them, and of those you will make up your number of twenty-four on the guardians committee. That is how the twenty-four are to be arrived at.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Twenty-four or less.

EARL RUSSELL

Twenty-four or less. Then you will add to them these twelve. It has occurred to me, and I cannot help thinking that it must have occurred to the noble Earl and to the Minister, that for committees which have to do this detailed work thirty-six is an appalling number, because these are the committees, I gather, that will replace the old guardians. There will come before them individual cases for out relief with all the individual attendant circumstances as to whether this person is to have more or that person less, the ordinary applications in maternity cases, whether the parish doctor is to attend free or the usual guinea is to be charged, and so on. All those matters of detail are to come before this committee. For that I should have thought that twelve or fifteen was a more suitable number than thirty-six. I quite realise that thirty-six is the maximum, but in cases where, for some reason or other which is not at present clear to me, it is necessary to have this very large committee of thirty-six, there seems no machinery under the Bill as it stands by which that committee could itself work through sub-committees.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Yes, there is machinery. In paragraph (c) provision is made for the discharge by each guardians committee or a subcommittee thereof of such of the functions transferred to the council under this Part of this Act as relates to the following matters"— and then the paragraph enumerates the matters.

EARL RUSSELL

I see. So that you have already ample powers in the Bill to do the actual work by smaller bodies. That removes a great part of my objection. Could the noble Earl tell us whether the Ministry of Health has considered what in practice is going to be the sort of thing that will happen to Poor Law areas, whether you are going to combine two, three or four in one Poor Law area, with one guardians committee, or whether it is considered that on the whole they will remain as they were, or possibly in some cases two will be combined to make one area? If the total number of areas is going to be very much reduced, that also will go a long way to answer the questions which were troubling me.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, leave out ("thirty-six") and insert ("eighteen")—(Earl Russell.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I will take the noble Earl's last, question first. Our object is to get a large area. The idea is that you should have a comparatively large area for the guardians committee. That will, therefore, require pretty broad representation and it has been very strongly represented that the original idea of a committee of twenty-four, which was the proposal first in the Bill, was for some districts too small, and therefore it was increased to thirty-six. The minimum is twelve. In the case of a somewhat large area, if you had a committee of only twenty-four, you might not be able to get the representation of those guardians who have been serving on boards of guardians for a great many years which you wish to secure in the co-opted members. The maximum number is thirty-six. It consists of district council members and county council members in the necessary proportions to secure that the total shall be within the figure of thirty-six, and then the co-opted members up to twelve. The duties can be undertaken by a subcommittee, as appears in paragraph (c), which enumerates the functions which can be transferred. I quite agree that for a duty of this kind a large body is not very convenient, but I think sufficient latitude is given for a large area to divide itself up.

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Earl's reply really meets the administrative difficulty that was troubling me. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (1) (c) (iii), after "amount," to insert "if any." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the debate in Committee I made a promise to Lord Parmoor, and this is my endeavour to implement it. I hope it is satisfactory.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 38, after ("amount") insert ("; if any,").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD PARMOOR

I think it is quite satisfactory. At the former stage I proposed similar words.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Disqualifications]:

LORD ARNOLD moved to insert as a new subsection: (4) For the purposes of this section, poor relief shall not include relief on loan.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this point was debated, though I think not sufficiently fully, in Committee. I want to put a specific point to the Lord Chancellor. He said that the reason against the Amendment moved in Committee was that it is undesirable that persons should be qualified to sit on public bodies when they have been in the immediate past, or when they may be at the time actually in receipt of relief from those public bodies. It is not very long since that persons in receipt of poor relief were disqualified from voting. That principle is gone, and our contention is that this other so-called principle should go also. What is the principle? What is the essential difference between disqualifying a man from voting because he has received poor relief, and disqualifying a man from sitting on a local body for the same reason? If it is said that in the latter capacity he may make decisions which affect himself, that is not a very strong argument, because Members of Parliament make decisions affecting themselves practically every day, and they fix the taxes which they have to pay. Moreover, this work will only form a very small part of the work of the councils, and you may by this provision be keeping off councils men very well qualified to render useful public service.

What is the justification for the provision about having received relief within twelve months of desiring to sit upon a local body? Especially, what is the justification for that if the relief has been given in the form of a loan? A man may, within twelve months of desiring to serve on a local body, have received relief by way of loan and he may have repaid it all within the first six months. That is often done. I cannot quite understand why, in those circumstances, he should then be disqualified from sitting on a local body. If he went to a friend and got a loan and repaid it, or if he went to a bank for a loan and repaid it, he would not be disqualified. I think the point is a real one, and I hope that some form of words may be put in on Third Reading to meet at any rate that part of our case.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Arnold.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM)

My Lords, the noble Lord moved this Amendment on the Committee stage, and I then dealt with it. I have not a great deal to add to what I then said. In the view of the noble Lord there is no reason why somebody who is in receipt of relief from a public body should not be on the body that is awarding the relief. All I can say is that that has long been regarded as undesirable and a person who is at present receiving relief cannot became a member of a board of guardians. Since the functions of boards of guardians are now to be transferred to the county council we think that this disqualification should equally be transferred. As to the specific point raised by the Amendment of the noble Lord, that Poor relief shall not include relief on loan, it has long been laid down that whether or not you get relief by way of loan or by way of grant makes no difference in its character, and makes no difference as to the desirability of the principle that the person who is claiming from a particular body a sum of public money by way of relief or grant, either out and out or subject to repayment, should not be one of the body which has to adjudicate on the claim. That seems to me to be a not undesirable principle. It is true that in old days the disqualifications were even stricter and that a person in receipt of relief was even debarred from voting at elections. That disqualification has been swept away presumably because it is thought that the relation is too indirect to justify that restriction being kept on. But the restriction as to membership of the body has always been the law and, in the view of the Government, ought to remain so.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has quite answered the real point, as I understand it, in what the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has brought forward. It might be quite right to disqualify from becoming a guardian any one who receives any form of relief from the board of guardians. That is a principle one can understand. But when it comes to the county council different considerations arise and a very large number of functions can be discharged in comparison with which this particular one might be quite subordinate. I have felt all through this Bill that one of the difficulties is to ensure that the county council should not be barred to what I would call poor people. What the noble Lord has in mind, though I am not sure that his Amendment quite carries it, is that if there has been relief on loan and that relief has been repaid so that any condition with regard to grant or loan has passed by—in those circumstances the recipient of relief on loan should not be disentitled to become a member of the county council. I think that is an important matter. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would consider that before the Third Reading. I admit that I regard it as one of the most important points in connection with this Bill to secure that some of the same class as now to a very large extent find places on boards of guardians may find their places on the county councils.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I can hardly think that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not appreciate the specific point which Lord Arnold put to him at the end of his speech, but he did not answer it. Let me make it perfectly clear. I am limiting myself simply to this one, small, definite point. A man receives relief on loan from the guardians. He repays it in full. Is he then to be disqualified? That is the point. Is he then to be disqualified? If he is then to be disqualified, why is he to be disqualified? What has he done that is more wrong or more improper than borrowing a loan from any other source and repaying it? He is not in debt to the authority. He is not receiving poor relief. He has received a loan and he has repaid it. The noble and learned Lord did not deal with that point: Is he, under this clause, disqualified although he has paid the loan in full, and if he is disqualified under this clause what is said to be the justification for it?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have no right to address your Lordships a second time on this point without the leave of the House. Of course, the answer is that there is no difference, as I said before, between relief by way of grant and relief by way of loan. If a man has had relief then he is disqualified for a period. What the exact period is has to be settled, of course, by Parliament. We thought that the twelve months ensuing was a reasonable period of disqualification. It is true that it is no stigma upon him that he has had to get relief, but it is always undesirable that people in that relation to the guardians should be members of the board of guardians. That is what I tried to explain before and I hope I have succeeded now.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 12 [Repeal of 5 Edw. 7, c. 18]:

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 43, after the first ("Act") insert ("any of").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13:

Consultation by councils of and county boroughs with bodies representing voluntary hospitals.

13. The council of every county and county borough shall make such arrangements as they think desirable for securing that the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act with respect to the provision of hospital accommodation will be discharged after consultation with such body, if any, within the county or county borough as they consider to represent the voluntary hospitals in the area.

LORD HANWORTH moved to leave out Clause 13 and to insert:— . The council of every county and county borough shall, after consultation with such body or persons within the county or county borough as represent the voluntary hospitals in the area, including representatives of the medical and surgical staffs of any voluntary hospitals in the area, make such arrangements as they think desirable for carrying into effect the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act with respect to the provision of hospital accommodation and treatment.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the clause which stands in my name may I recall to your Lordships how it is that I have ventured to place it on the Paper for your Lordships' consideration. When the Bill was in Committee your Lordships discussed the question of hospital accommodation. I ventured to ask that some very loose terms in which the clause as it then stood was phrased, should be omitted from any clause that was drafted. As it stood it provided that the functions should be discharged "after consultation with such body" and so on. I have no right of any sort or kind to speak on behalf of the hospitals. It was really as a draftsman that I intervened, and several of your Lordships asked me afterwards whether I would take the trouble to put my suggestions into a definite form and bring up a new clause. It is on that ground that I venture to bring this clause before your Lordships' House and to point out the features which make it different from the clause which follows it on the Paper, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.

Your Lordships will see that I have made the consultation one which must take place, by putting in the words "The council of every county and county borough shall," and then introducing, before the operative words of the clause, "make such arrangements as they think desirable." To that extent the purpose that I had in mind when I addressed your Lordships before is carried out in the clause. There are two features in which the clause I have put down differs from that which stands in the name of the noble Earl. I have added— after consultation with such body or persons within the county… I put in the words "or persons" to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, on behalf of cottage hospitals which might not have an organisation or be incorporated into any body or take part in any committee. It occurred to me that by putting in the words "or persons" one might give that freedom for consultation to the council which would give them, in areas where there was no body or committee, an opportunity of consulting those who are none the less carrying on excellent work in the form of cottage hospitals. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in his clause uses the phrase "with such committee or other body, if any." There is not much difference, but I think the phrase "or persons" does just meet the point which was put by Lord Bledisloe.

I come to the last two words of the clause which are to my mind really important. There are no such words in Lord Onslow's clause. In thinking over, entirely as a draftsman, what ought to be in this clause, it certainly occurred to me that the interpretation of the word "accommodation" by a Court of Law might be in some narrow sense. I am quite sure that your Lordships all intended to refer not merely to the accommodation in the sense of the provision of a number of beds, but also to the treatment of the patients who lie in those beds, and I thought perhaps the word "accommodation" narrowed the consultation too much. I therefore put in the words "and treatment." That I was right I feel confident, because, on turning to the earlier clauses of the Bill, I find this. If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to page 4 of the Bill you will see that in Clause 5 there are "provisions as to alternative powers of giving assistance." Of course the assistance that is to be given would rightly include some treatment. It is not merely the assistance that is given under the Mental Deficiency Act or the Maternity or Child Welfare Act or the Blind Persons Act. In all those cases the assistance takes the form of some sort of treatment.

If your Lordships will turn to the last paragraph of subsection (1) you will see that that is made perfectly plain for the context reads:— For the purposes of this subsection, the expression 'assistance' includes maintenance and treatment at hospitals and other places. It is a well known rule of law that inclusion of one item excludes another, and in view of the fact that there is this interpretation paragraph in Clause 5 that assistance shall include treatment, it appears to me quite clear, by parity of reasoning, that unless you put the words "and treatment" after accommodation, or make a subsection whereby you say, as in Clause 5, that accommodation shall include treatment, you leave the possible and indeed probable construction of the word "accommodation" to refer to the provision of a number of beds and exclude what your Lordships undoubtedly intend to mean, "treatment." I venture to say that all those who are accustomed to interpret Acts of Parliament, when their attention has been drawn to that paragraph in Clause 5 will agree with the observations that I have made. Therefore I have found reasons which reinforce the original reason I had for putting in the words "and treatment." With those observations I commend the clause, as it includes treatment. I have drafted what represents, I think, the greatest common measure of agreement and purpose which was presented to your Lordships in Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, leave cut Clause 13 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hanworth.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The first question I have to put is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill. I gather there is a general opinion in favour of that and probably it would be convenient to deal with that and then go on with the other Amendment.

On Question, Amendment that Clause 13 be left out agreed to.

On Question, Whether the new clause proposed by Lord Hanworth shall be inserted?

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, the question that arose when we were discussing this Bill in Committee resulted in what I think we may fairly term a consensus of opinion on the part of your Lordships that specific provision should be made in the Bill to ensure consultation with the voluntary hospitals, to enable them to play their part in the administration of any scheme and generally to carry on their work. Your Lordships will recollect that on that occasion the noble Earl in charge of the Bill expressed substantially his agreement with the views of your Lordships, and a clause was on the Paper for the purpose of dealing with the matter. That clause was the subject of some discussion. At first sight it appeared to some of us, myself in particular, to be sufficient for the purpose. On further discussion and consideration we thought that the language required strengthening. I have had a suitable opportunity since of considering the language, and the conclusion to which I have come is that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Hanworth is preferable. It seems to us to carry out more definitely the views to which your Lordships came on the last occasion.

I would call attention to two or three points upon which there may be a difference of opinion. In doing that I am afraid it is inevitable that I should refer to the clause which is now on the Paper, and which I saw there for the first time this morning, in the name of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. That is, as I understand it, the alternative clause, and I assume your Lordships will find it convenient that we should discuss the two clauses together so that we may see what are the essential differences between them. They are both dealing with the same point and are intended to meet the wishes of your Lordships. The criticisms I have to address to the noble Earl's Amendment would, as it appears, be quite conveniently made now, so that I need not repeat them when the noble Earl moves his clause.

My objection to the clause of the Government is threefold. One point is so small that I shall only mention it. The first criticism is that it deals only with hospital accommodation, and does not, as my noble and learned friend has said, specifically deal with treatment. It may be said, and assume, that that is sufficient, that where you have words which intend consultation with the bodies represented in the voluntary hospitals as regards accommodation that necessarily must include treatment. At present I do not think the language is apt if that is what is intended. If, on the other hand, it is intended to limit it to accommodation in the strict sense, as it might be interpreted and as I cannot help thinking would be interpreted in a Court of Law—that is to say, limited to considerations of place, suitability and so forth but not including treatment—then I think the clause of the noble Earl does not go far enough and really does not give your Lordships what I think you are entitled to ask. What I certainly understood you wanted was that there should be consultation with the voluntary hospitals generally as regards accommodation and the treatment to be received in the hospitals, limited as it is by the language of this clause.

The proposal is that the council shall consult with such committee as is representative and make such arrangements as they think desirable for carrying into effect the functions transferred to them. I emphasise those words for the reason that all that is required of the council is that they shall make such arrangements as they may deem desirable after they have had an opportunity of consultation. I think your Lordships will see that this clause does not carry us very far although it does absolutely enact as a statutory obligation that there shall be consultation with the voluntary hospitals. You have a provision that there must be consultation, but what follows is that the council is not bound by anything that may be said or urged by the voluntary hospitals. They have to come to their own conclusion as to what they think desirable. As to the latter point, their liberty to do whatever they think desirable for the purpose of carrying out arrangements, no question arises. Neither of the clauses raises that point. I am not criticising in any way the language either of Lord Hanworth's clause or the Earl of Onslow's clause in this respect. I am quite content with the Government wording. That really is a non-controversial point. My only object in mentioning it is to draw your Lordships' attention to the very limited effect of the clause, whichever you accept.

The real points that arise upon Lord Hanworth's Amendment as compared with that of the Earl of Onslow are two. The first is that Lord Hanworth's clause contains the words "hospital accommodation and treatment." That is to say, there shall be consultation with respect to the provision of "hospital accommodation and treatment." I cannot help thinking that it is necessary that that language should be used if we are to avoid ambiguity. If it is intended, as I rather fancy the noble Earl indicated, to limit the application of the clause to accommodation in the strict sense of the term and not to apply it to treatment, it makes a case a fortiori as it seems to me for the insertion of the words in Lord Han-worth's clause, because it is necessary if you want to get consultation that there should be consultation both as to accommodation and treatment. In one sense it may be argued that he word "accommodation" implies treatment, inasmuch as it may very well be said that you cannot consider space or place without regard to the purposes for which it is required—that is, treatment. But the difficulty is that in its application to hospitals the word "accommodation" may be limited. For that reason I infinitely prefer the words of Lord Hanworth's clause to the words of the Government's clause.

The other point is a substantial one which your Lordships may remember was discussed on the last occasion. It was left to the noble Earl to consider what could be done by the Government. The result has been that they have not seen fit to meet the views that were urged in this respect. In Lord Han-worth's clause the words used are "after consultation with such body or persons … as represent the voluntary hospitals in the area." In the Government clause the words are "as they consider to represent." Your Lordships will see that there is a substantial difference between the two. In my noble and learned friend's clause the words imply consultation with a body which in fact represents the voluntary hospitals. In the Government clause it is left to the council to determine which body they consider represents the voluntary hospitals. It may be said quite fairly that, whichever words you adopt, there may be a dispute. If, for example, you take the words of my noble and learned friend there may be some rival body. By the courtesy of the Minister in charge of the Bill I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with him, and that is a point which was made.

Your Lordships will see that, in fact, there may be in some particular county area a dispute as to whether a body of persons does really represent the voluntary hospitals. It occurs to me that there must be some means of settling that question in the simplest and cheapest possible way. Whether you adopt the language of Lord Hanworth or of the Government you equally have an undetermined question, and the suggestion I have to make with regard to it—have not had the opportunity of putting an Amendment on the Paper—is that a question of this character ought not to be brought before the Courts of Law. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will agree with that. It is cumbrous and expensive and inconvenient to settle a dispute of this character in the Courts of Law. The point that would arise is which of two rival bodies in the county is the right body to be consulted. A simple way of dealing with that would be to insert a provision to the effect that in case of dispute as to which is the representative body the matter should be referred to the Minister, whose decision should be final and conclusive. For myself, should be perfectly satisfied with his decision. Certainly, with the; present Minister there would be no difficulty and I am sure that any one who follows him would deal in the same spirit with the matter.

If your Lordships accept the words of Lord Hanworth's Amendment it will be necessary, in my view, to have a proviso, which I shall be prepared to propose if it becomes necessary, to refer the point to the Minister for final decision. The objection to the words of the Government's Amendment is that they are far wider than the language of Lord Han-worth's clause. They leave it to the council. I quite agree that in most cases no difficulty would arise. The council would be able to come to a conclusion and would form their opinion. But in certain areas it might happen that there was a real dispute and it might be thought that the council had dealt with the wrong body. I want to adopt, as I have suggested just now to your Lordships, the very simple course of leaving it to the Minister in case there should be rival bodies to decide which of the two is really the body to be consulted. As the matter stands at present, I would respectfully urge upon your Lordships that we should adopt the language of Lord Hanworth's clause. It was not drafted in any sense in a controversial spirit. On the contrary, he came into the discussion and merely made a suggestion for carrying out in what he thought was the best way your Lordships' desire. In my opinion it does carry out exactly what was intended and what I thought and certainly hoped would be adopted by the Government. There are only those two matters, but we do attribute importance to them.

If I may exhaust all that I have to say on the two clauses, for we are now dealing also With the clause which the Government will propose, what I would suggest is that the words "if any" in the Government clause should be left out. They make an unfortunate collocation with the words which immediately follow. I hope the Government will accept that suggestion. May I also make one suggestion to my noble and learned friend with regard to the words "with such body or persons." I have some difficulty with regard to the words "or persons." I understood him to say that the object of introducing those words was to give the opportunity of consultation with persons who may not be members of the body representing the voluntary hospitals. May I point out that it is always open to the council to consult any body it chooses and that they can consult any such person? The point of the clause is to make it mandatory on them to enter into consultation with the body representing the hospitals. I am a little afraid that the words "or persons" may leave it open to the council to consult only a chairman or some member of the body and not the whole body, and then to say that they have complied with the Act because they have consulted some person. It would be better if the words "or persons" were left out.

That, in substance, represents the views. I would present upon the two clauses. I would impress upon the Government the desirability of accepting the clause as drafted by Lord Hanworth, which really does not differ Very substantially from their own. His clause does carry out the views which your Lordships expressed on the last occasion and it is more specific and more definite than the clause which the Government have put down. The statutory obligation you put upon the councils is to do nothing further than to consult. You are not asking them, by this clause, to give effect to anything that the voluntary hospitals may say. All that we are asking—and what the Government are willing to provide—is that there shall be an obligation to consult. If that is so, then it is necessary, in the interests of the voluntary hospitals and for the purposes of their protection in future, an object which met with the sympathy of all your Lordships, to get the clause, indefinite as it necessarily must he, as definite as it possibly can be.

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

My Lords, I am only concerned in speaking on this matter because of the word "treatment" introduced in Lord Hanworth's Amendment. I would urge very strongly upon your Lordships to accept that word. I am not speaking on behalf of the voluntary hospitals at all but for what I earnestly believe to be the benefit of the people at large. We want in these new hospitals to be sure that the county councils in drawing up and carrying out their schemes should have the advantage of the experience, not only of laymen who have managed hospitals, but of the medical and surgical staff connected with them who stand for the highest advance and highest knowledge in the profession. At present, as your Lordships know, the two bodies are entirely divorced. You have the voluntary hospital with a magnificent staff, and you have what has been called up to now the Poor Law infirmary, with perhaps one able man and no staff of any importance to help him. We want the county councils to have the advantage of the experience and advice of the medical staffs of the voluntary hospitals to tell them how hospitals should be organised from the medical and surgical point of view. No possible improvement can be carried out unless there is co-ordination and co-operation in working.

I hope that such recurrent consultations with those who are at the head of the profession will have the effect that we shall no longer see in a great hospital, as we do now in some of the Poor Law infirmaries, one man, however able, doing every sort of operation, a thing which he would never dare to do if he were on the staff of a voluntary hospital. I hope we shall not continue to see anaesthetists employed who are nothing like so good as the anaesthetists available in the profession. I hope we shall never see what I have seen in the last year, a young man, not even on the staff of a great hospital, going to take over the locum at one of the biggest Poor Law hospitals, first on the medical side and then on the surgical side. He said to me: "Look at the experience for me." But what about the patients? Unless you can get skilled men, who know how patients should be treated, to help the county councils with advice, you cannot get the proper organisation in these new hospitals. Therefore, I hope we shall not be frightened by the word "treatment" introduced into this clause and that your Lordships will accept it.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My Lords, I hope that you will accept Lord Hanworth's clause with such addendum as has been suggested by the noble Marquess. I see no harm in the Minister of Health being the final arbiter as to whether this body or persons do in fact adequately represent the voluntary hospitals in the administrative area of the county councils. I ventured the other day to put in a word on behalf of the small cottage hospitals scattered about the country doing admirable work. They are just the sort of institutions which, if county councils with somewhat ambitious ideas choose to develop grandiose schemes, are liable to be crushed out in favour of new rate-aided undertakings. These are just the institutions which may not be represented by so-called bodies or committees which may be selected by the Ministry of Health as representative of voluntary hospitals of every type within the boundary of a county.

The noble Viscount who has just spoken represents perhaps the greatest urban hospital in this great City and we all know what perfectly admirable work he has done in obtaining support for the maintenance and development of that great institution. The sort of hospital for which I plead is poles apart from the London Hospital in which he is interested. I can picture some suitable body in the County of London representing these larger hospitals such as the London Hospital. I find it much more difficult to picture any truly representative body which is so comprehensive in its outlook as to include both the county infirmary and the small cottage hospital doing admirable work in a thoroughly rural area. For those reasons I hope your Lordships will retain "or persons" as an alternative to the word "body," especially if you accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess that the final arbiter in these matters shall be the Minister of Health, who will be in a position to say whether the persons selected adequately represent the interests which I have in view.

I should also like to support the inclusion of the word "treatment," and for the very reason that I ventured to put before your Lordships the other day. In these small village hospitals to-day there are set up under the Education Act, 1921, to which I think specific reference is made in Clause 2, clinics for the purpose of examination and treatment of children suffering from small maladies connected with the throat, or ear, or nose which are deemed to interfere with their educability. They do not require accommodation in the sense of ward accommodation, and it is not usually provided, but the hospital is used as a rendezvous for the purposes of the clinic. This is, I think, as good a case as you could find—that of an institution justifying itself for county work as a clinic without necessarily providing any definite accommodation for that purpose. For those two reasons I venture to hope that your Lordships will accept Lord Hanworth's Amendment in preference to that of the noble Earl, with such addendum as has been indicated or suggested by the noble Marquess opposite.

LORD DAWSON OF PENN had given Notice to move Amendments to the proposed new clause—to insert (a) after "consultation" and "and (b) with representatives of the medical faculty of any University which serves the area" after the second "area." The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House. I should like to deal with my Amendments towards the end of my remarks, and first to deal with what to my mind is the crucial difference between the two clauses which your Lordships have before you. Let me recall to your Lordships what was unquestionably agreed amongst members of the Committee—namely, that these new bodies are going to undertake a large responsibility at the very moment when they enter the field of curative medicine. Neither the council nor the medical men who advise it will have had previous experience or knowledge adequate to carrying on those new duties, and it was, I suggest, the sense of the Committee that some kind of help should be brought to them, not by compulsion but through conference with the voluntary hospitals and the staffs attached to them, and with that part of the medical profession which has always dealt with curative medicine. In other words, there should be conference between those who know and those who will be called upon to administer. As I judged the opinion of the Committee, it was felt that the way to give this help was to bring to the aid of these new hospitals the traditions, experience and knowledge of the voluntary hospitals that have existed for generations, and so to bring about an organic nexus between the doctors and the hospital managers who are concerned with disease. I understood the Committee to grant that this consultation should be real, not fanciful, and that it should be an effective and recurring liaison.

This brings me to what I think is the vital difference between these two clauses. One clause says that there shall be this conference with regard to hospital accommodation. "Accommodation" may mean, and in plain English, to my mind, does mean, nothing more than the mere fabric and arrangements of the building. What use is that? It is a futile concession. What is the good of having a building and having no say as to the purpose for which it is to be used'? If, on the other hand, you include the words "and treatment," that does not mean that these medical men and representatives of hospital managers are to come in here, now and every time to interfere with the proper responsibility of these new hospitals. All it means is that real conference shall take place which will determine, not only the buildings to be put up but the purposes for which they are going to be used. I am told that the best way of providing this is to insert the words "and treatment." I am not wedded to those words, but I am wedded to the principle that the people who have acquired this experience through generations shall bring it in conference to the aid of these inexperienced councils and their medical men, who are also inexperienced in that particular respect, so that matters far more important than the mere buildings shall be considered and determined in common. What we want, I repeat once more, is conference but not force.

I do beg your Lordships to be firm on this question of treatment. Just imagine what it means. I ask you to picture a general hospital. Its work has grown up through the generations and there is amongst the members of the staff, to be offered to men who are just beginning, a tradition, a habit, a custom, an atmosphere of restraining opinion which secures that, whereas every man gets his chance, the right man is put to do the right job. If, for example, a young and talented man shows a tendency to allow his enterprise to outstrip his judgment, what happens? Quite gently he feels the atmosphere. My noble friend, the noble Viscount opposite, for instance, might sometimes step in with a word of restraint. The result is that the wrong things are not done and the right men do the right jobs. This system has grown up little by little, with a great tradition and with all the talent of my profession behind it; for all men of talent move in the direction of the great stream of hospital work. Do you want to alienate the sympathies of my profession? How can you work these new hospitals without us? I am sometimes inclined to think that the Government want to do it, because they brought in the whole of this Bill without any consultation at all with the heads of my profession. I beg your Lordships to stand firm on this question of treatment.

I will give you an example. Suppose an enterprising council says that it will take up radium. They say it with good intentions, but it is desperately dangerous. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent a council from doing it. All we ask is that, in the case of a weapon so useful for the public good, so powerful in the right hands, so desperately dangerous in the wrong, before these young and inexperienced councils come into being—and I wish them God speed—they shall have conference with persons of experience not only on questions of fabric but as to whether this kind of treatment is to be used, or whether, when the type of treatment is of a more complicated character, it shall be done in other places. I ask for a cheque of confidence, and I am confident that when men are gathered round a table the man who knows generally can pull his weight, even if he is in a minority. I can give your Lord- ships other examples. An inexperienced hospital undertaking cannot command the best staff. It will take them years to get the right staff, and do you think they are going to get it unless they win the confidence of the profession? They are not, and for this reason, that until these new places have earned for themselves academic standing they will not draw the best men from the Universities. It is not a professional matter but a question of the public good. It is everything to draw the medical profession in and to go along the acknowledged lines of experience.

For that reason, I beg your Lordships not to be satisfied with this mere question of hospital accommodation and fabric, but to insist that there shall be conferences and consultation over the purpose for which the fabric is to be used. If the noble Earl opposite tells me that the words of his clause cover the purpose for which the fabric is going to be used, then why not state it in plain English? He must forgive me for being a little sceptical, because I may tell him that the medical profession has not been properly consulted in the drawing up of the Poor Law part of the Bill. In the founding of these new hospitals there has been no proper conference with the heads of the profession, however informal or unofficial. Surely it would have been natural to have called those heads together and to have said: "We are thinking of giving powers of general treatment to these new county hospitals; can you help us, can you give us advice and draw up a scheme? We do not, of course, commit ourselves to accepting it." It is because there has been no proper consultation of that sort on the part of the Minister of Health, that he must forgive me if I am a little sceptical, when I find that his clause gives us nothing but a barren concession as to hospital accommodation, and contains no words which say that the medical profession shall be consulted as to the purposes for which that accommodation is to be used. Perhaps I may say a few words on the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but probably it will be for the convenience of the House to determine in the first place the question which is now before it, as to whether Lord Hanworth's Amendment shall be accepted or the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Whichever is accepted, the noble Lord has an Amendment which deals with this point and it will probably be easier for the House first of all to determine which of these two forms of Amendment shall be adopted. The noble Lord can then move his Amendment afterwards.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW had on the Paper the following proposed new clause:

Consultation as to the provision of hospital accommodation.

" .The council of every county and county borough shall, before making provision for hospital accommodation in discharge of the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act, consult with such committee or other body, if any, as they consider to represent both the governing bodies and the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals providing services in or for the benefit of the county or county borough."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I give some explanation of the Government's attitude on this matter, because I think, from the speeches which we have heard, that there is considerable misapprehension as to the meaning of the words, not only of my Amendment, but of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I must trouble your Lordships with one or two observations as to the origin of this Amendment. When I addressed your Lordships on the first clay we were in Committee on this point, I had handed to me what I understood was an Amendment which Lord Dawson of Penn wished to he moved. I read it out to your Lordships; and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote it to you, because it is on this point that the whole of my Amendment is based. The Amendment which I understood Lord Dawson was then in favour of moving—he had not put it down upon the Paper—was as follows:— and (b) any body existing in the area which is so constituted as to be representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners on the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals in the area. The whole of my observations were based on that Amendment, and the object of my Amendment to-day is to give effect to those words. Lord Hanworth, in the debate on the second day, said that the terms were loose and that he would be glad if steps could be taken to draw them a little tighter, and to make them more explanatory. I am glad to think that we have done something to meet his views.

I come now to the various points of difference between the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord and the Amendment which I hay e put down upon the Paper. The first point which the noble Lord has raised, and where difference between us exists, is as to the addition of the word "persons" to "such committee or other body." I am afraid that that would make the possible interpretation of the clause too wide. I think a great deal turns upon the question of drafting, but this addition of "persons" would, I think, render a possible interpretation of this cause far too wide, because it would enable a local authority to consult with individuals rather than with a body which represents all the hospitals in the area. It might enable a county council or a county borough council to say: "We will consult so-and-so, and not with the voluntary hospital association or the British Hospital Association, or any other body." I do not say that that would be a very reasonable proceeding, or that it is likely to happen, but in drafting Acts of Parliament you have to say what you mean, and to be very precise. It would enable a county council to give the go-by (if I may use the expression) to hospital representatives.

If I may, I would remind your Lordships of a passage in the speech of the noble Marquess opposite. He said:— The point that I am a little anxious to make clear is that it must be a body that is representative. We are very strongly of that opinion. We think this body should be representative—that it should be one representing the voluntary hospitals in the area, including the medical staffs. It might possibly be said that no body of the kind mentioned in the clause exists. As a matter of fact, I think that is very un-likely to be the case. There existed only quite recently in practically every county and a great many county boroughs local voluntary hospitals committees which were formed by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission. A great many of these became functus officio when the work of the Commission ceased, but a number of them still exist and are very active. I have seen reports from the Manchester Local Voluntary Hospitals Committee, and from others such as Sheffield, showing that a great deal of good work is being carried on by these bodies. Some of them have developed considerably. Some of them have become hospitals councils, and a great many, especially in the county areas, still exist on paper. This is the case in my own county where the committee has not been called together for some time, but if it was necessary and there was work for them to do, I do not think there would be much difficulty in obtaining their services again. Then again, the Hospitals Association have a network of committees all over the country. I am informed that they are reorganising already, in order to make a more serviceable body which would be at the disposal of the local authority for the purposes mentioned in this Bill.

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

There are no medical men on it.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Not on the Hospitals Association; but there are on the voluntary hospitals committees. Medical men are represented by both the consultants and the general practitioners connected with the hospitals. If there should be areas—and of course there may be areas—where there is no committee available at present, it is, I think, most desirable that one should be set up. Anyhow, one of the results of this Bill should be that a committee representing the hospitals and those interests which are described in this Amendment should be set up and constituted, and the voluntary hospitals in each area should combine together specially for the purpose of consulting with the local authority. I think if you put the word "person" in here instead of "committee" or "body" it might militate against the formation of committees, and therefore it would work against the most desirable result of the local authorities consulting with the representatives of the hospitals en bloc.

We have the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe. Lord Bledisloe says: "Yes, it is all very well. You may consult with the larger hospitals, who have these committees, but they do not represent the smaller hospitals." Now, I understand that they do in the Hos- pitals Association. My noble friend behind me (Lord Knutsford) tells me that they do. In the case of the voluntary hospitals committees they do also. The cottage hospitals are certainly represented on those bodies. Of course, one would sympathise most heartily with Lord Bledisloe when he desires that hospitals such as he has described should be represented on these bodies, and I have no doubt whatever that if the machinery which is in existence is made use of they will certainly have the opportunity of giving their advice.

Now I come to the next point in Lord Hanworth's Amendment. There may be some difficulty in judging which is the correct and mast representative body. I am advised that if we accepted the Amendment which is down in the name of Lord Hanworth, and there were two committees which claimed to represent voluntary hospitals in the area the matter might be taken into Court to decide which of those two would be the proper and most representative one. That case has actually already arisen. I have had a letter from a local voluntary hospitals committee which was set up under the Voluntary Hospitals Commission, and has been functioning ever since, which says that they have seen a letter in The Times saying that the British Hospitals Association would be the more appropriate body to represent the hospitals in the various districts, and they say that as they think they have done a great deal of work and they are functioning very successfully they are the more appropriate body. So you may have two bodies which are competing.

We therefore think that as the local authority is clearly the body responsible for the management of its institutions it is for them to judge as to who really represents the voluntary hospitals and with whom they should establish relations. After all, the local authority should be masters in their own house within the limits of the Bill—that is the essence of local government; and it does not seem to be right to put upon them an obligation, and then to place them in a difficulty as to how they are to carry out that obligation. I think this difficulty was present to the mind of the noble Marquess, and he has made a suggestion—he has not put it on the Paper, but at a later stage he says he may put it on the Paper—that in the event of two competing authorities existing the Minister should be placed in the position of judge.

I would ask your Lordships to consider the great difficulty of carrying out the suggestion. You have, we will say, a voluntary hospitals committee which is doing good work and is functioning in a particular area. On the other hand, you have a Hospitals Association committee, which would be a regional committee at the present time, I think, and which has not organised itself on a local basis. Well, the local voluntary hospitals committee might say: "We have done good work up to now, and we are the right and proper representatives." One, indeed, has written to me in that sense. The Hospitals Association might say, "Well, there are not very many of these local voluntary hospitals committees. Surely it is more convenient and better to have the one organisation throughout the country." I think that has been already urged. What is going to happen? The Minister has to decide. The various pros and cons would have to be put before him, firstly, by the local authority, secondly, by one of the rival committees, and, thirdly by the second rival committee. It would be a meticulous local inquiry into local matters, which would be very difficult for the Minister to decide upon, and I venture to think that you can trust your local authority.

They are intelligent people; they will not use the bad committee rather than the good one. I think it will be agreed that on most of the voluntary hospitals committees the most prominent people in the counties are county councillors, and I do not think you will lose anything by trusting them, and allowing them to select advisers. To place this matter in the hands of the Minister and to ask him to act as referee would make it difficult to get a right and proper decision on this essentially local matter. So I recommend to your Lordships the clause which I have put down on the Paper in that respect.

We have another point raised by the noble and learned Marquess. It will be observed that in my Amendment, which differs in that respect from Lord Hanworth's, the words "if any" are introduced. Those words are really intro- duced from a drafting point of view. The clause, as you will see, is mandatory. It says: The council of every county and county borough shall … consult. They are bound to do so before making arrangements for the provision of hospital accommodation. If by chance no body existed, and therefore there was no body to consult at the moment, it might be said that the local authority would be unable to meet the obligation laid upon them and to discharge the functions transferred to them. I am advised that this might be the effect if the words "if any" were left out. But there it is; I do not think it is a very important point and if the noble Lord thinks that probably these circumstances would not arise—and I do net think they are very likely to arise—I should be quite willing to accept that point.

Now we come to the main argument between us. The noble and learned Lord told us that the word "accommodation" was too narrow, and the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, and others of your Lordships to-night, have pointed out various defects in the word "accommodation" which, they say, does not go far enough to include certain specific functions which they think ought to be referred to these committees. If the noble and learned Lord thinks the word "accommodation" is too narrow, I am rather inclined to think that the word "treatment" is too narrow, or that both are too wide, I do not know which it is. If your Lordships think that "accommodation" is not sufficiently precise I must say that I think "treatment" is far too vague and means a good deal more than any of your Lordships have thought that it does.

LORD HANWORTH

Will the noble Earl tell us what the word "treatment" means in line 25, on page 4 of the Bill— For the purpose of this subsection, the expression 'assistance' includes maintenance and treatment … If it is so vague and uncertain why was it put in?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I will explain to your Lordships exactly what "treatment" means in this case; because "treatment," as I will endeavour to explain, has the wide meaning which the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, said in his speech he had not meant. I am speaking now from the point of view of drafting, and I am advised that the effect of including the word "treatment" would be that a local authority would be under an obligation to consult the committee with respect not only to the internal management of the hospital but to the medical treatment of the patients. The noble Lord, Lord Dawson, says "No." This is a drafting point, and I have been very careful to take the opinion of the learned draftsmen on the subject, and I am informed that this is the effect of that wording of the clause.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

The noble Earl will forgive me, but if after the words "before making provision for hospital accommodation" in his Amendment the words "or treatment" were added, the wording would simply be "before making provision for hospital accommodation or treatment," and both cases would be governed by the words "make provision."

LORD HANWORTH

Hear, hear!

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am told that the effect of the words as drafted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, would be as I have stated it to your Lordships. Lord Dawson has expressly told your Lordships that that would be unacceptable to him. In those circumstances, and as I understand that that is the effect, it would be impossible to accept the Amendment as it stands and as proposed by the noble and learned Lord. The result of it would be that it would be necessary to consult the people on the consultative committee regarding the treatment of patients in the hospital.

LORD DAWSON OF PENN

I specifically excluded that in express terms.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The noble Lord says he excluded that; but my contention is that if the words were included in the Bill the effect would be to bring about a state of affairs which he does not desire.

LORD DAWSON OF PENN

The noble Earl will pardon me; I laid down exactly what I meant. The mere fabric or building of the hospital is what "accommodation" means. I was advised by my noble and learned friend that the words "and treatment" were the best to use to express the functions to which that accommodation shall be assigned. If the noble Earl will accept those words "hospital accommodation and the functions to which that accommodation shall be assigned," that is what I mean. I only use "and treatment" because the noble and learned Marquess told me that that was the best way of expressing it. What I mean is quite explicit—I mean no interference of any kind.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I really think we are getting together. I prefaced my speech by saying that this is really a matter of drafting, and if the noble Lord would put it in that form I think we could accept it.

LORD DAWSON OF PENN

I should like to consult my noble and learned friends. I have not had an opportunity of conferring with those who have knowledge of the law. In that matter I lean entirely on the noble Marquess and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth. I have put in the word "treatment" with this object—that we shall not be limited to mere questions of accommodation, which is the fabric of the hospital, the size of its wards and so on. I care much more about the functions to which that accommodation shall be assigned. If you agree to those words "the functions to which that accommodation shall be assigned" and the noble Marquess tells me that they are sound as a matter of drafting, I will gladly accept them.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I think we are getting quite close together. I am no draftsman, but I am informed by the learned draftsmen who are advising the Government in this matter that the effect would be contrary to what noble Lords wish, if "treatment" were put it.

LORD HANWORTH

I am afraid I must adhere to the words "and treatment." They are already in the Bill. They already have a purpose. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who is familiar with the interpretation of Acts of Parliament, knows perfectly well that if you put in different words it is because you mean something different. As the noble Marquess pointed out, what we want to secure is that there shall be the provision not merely of hospital accommodation and beds but of the treatment of the persons who lie in the beds. The whole of those two phrases is governed by the word "provision." From the point of view of drafting I cannot accept the alteration.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

It is a little bit difficult to explain to your Lordships when noble Lords interrupt at some length.

LORD HANWORTH

I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I am very sorry. I thought he invited me.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Our contention is that the words "and treatment" mean something different from what the noble Lord thinks they mean. Our contention is that "treatment" means what the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, suggested should be substituted for it, and we are quite prepared to accept that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, is not in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dawson. I am afraid I must leave it at that; I do not think I can carry it any further. I should like to bring one other point to your Lordships' notice, regarding this word "treatment"—that it would include, if I am right, dealing with the individual patients lying in the beds. Supposing the consultative committee were called in to advise on that point, the same thing would doubtless be asked for or suggested by the medical authorities of the local authorities. They might well say: "You are consulted in regard to the treatment of the patients in the local authorities hospitals. We desire that our medical advisers should be consulted in regard to the management or treatment of patients in the voluntary hospitals." I do not think that is a state of affairs which would be a very desirable one. I venture to think that Lord Dawson's suggestion would meet the case. The noble Lord mentioned régime and things of that kind. I am advised that his point would be covered by "accommodation." But he has suggested words and I am willing to accept them.

This is a new experimental system of interest and importance, and it is very desirable that it should be initiated with the good will of all the local authorities. I have reason to suppose that this will be forthcoming for the arrangement that has been proposed. If the arrangement develops in time into a useful method of consultation between two great autho- rities both dealing with the same thing I feel certain it would be of great public advantage.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, you may remember that on a previous occasion the whole wish of the noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls, was to interpret the general wishes of your Lordships' House. He had no feeling one way or another. He listened to the debate and tried to put into legal form what he understood was the general wish. I think that is the point we are dealing with. It is somewhat difficult on the Report stage to deal with matters which might have been more conveniently dealt with in Committee. However, in Committee we are limited by rules of your Lordships' House, and are discussing these matters on Report. There are three or four points. The first, whether there should be persons rather than representatives of the association, is not one upon which I will touch, but I will say something upon the question referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as to which association should be chosen. I am bound to say that looking at the enormous powers the Minister takes to himself in this Bill, I should have thought he would be perfectly willing to decide which association. It is a very simple matter of administration and I cannot have any doubt that he would be perfectly well able to decide upon it.

The real point is the question of treatment, and here we find ourselves in some difficulty. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Dawson of Penn), if he will allow me to say so, so pre-eminent in medicine is perhaps not so pre-eminent; in law, and he was rather too ready to fall in with the suggestion which was made to him by the noble Earl opposite without consulting those of his friends who are more learned in the law. The noble Lord in those circumstances very likely used phrases which he would not have done if he had had an opportunity of consulting his friends. I wish to emphasise to your Lordships' House the desirability of putting into this Dill the word "treatment," and I am encouraged by the action of His Majesty's Government. Would your Lordships believe it, in the Scottish Bill which we shall be considering next week there is a great deal about treatment. In Clause 27 over and over again the word "treatment" is included and the words "facilities for treatment" also occur. The two things are taken together in the Scottish Bill. You also find that "hospital facilities" include "arrangements with respect to the provision of treatment"—another repetition of the word.

I think there is a general consensus of opinion in your Lordships' House. We always listen to the noble Viscount. Lord Knutsford, with respect on these questions, as we also do to the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, and, in addition, there is a very general consensus of opinion in your Lordships' House which was expressed upon the last occasion. There is, further, the readiness of His Majesty's Government to give to Scotland what, for the moment, they refuse to England. I think that English hospitals might at any rate be treated as well as the Scottish hospitals, and for that reason I hope your Lordships will insist upon including the words "and treatment" in this Bill, as they have been included in a similar way in the Scottish Bill by His Majesty's Government.

LORD COZENS-HARDY

My Lords, there is one difference between the two Amendments which has not been touched upon and which I think is non-controversial. In the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, the words "hospitals in the area" are used in two places and "consultation with such body or persons within the county or county borough." Very frequently the hospital that serves an area is not within the area, and the body which deals with the hospital is also not within the area. In the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that point has been met in the last line by saying "voluntary hospitals providing services in or for the benefit of the county or county borough." I would ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, whether he would be prepared to substitute those words in place of "in the area," and to strike out "within the county or county borough."

LORD HANWORTH

My Lords, I hesitate to inflict myself upon your Lordships again. I have not had the opportunity of considering exactly what the words are, and I think it would be the better course, if my clause is carried and added to the Bill, that on Third Reading, as I think one can in this House, I should consider those words and see whether they fit in. I have not the least desire in any way to do more than to assist your Lordships by the best draftsmanship that I am able to provide.

LORD ATKIN

My Lords, will your Lordships forgive me if I say two or three words which are directed to meet the drafting objection and nothing else? I feel quite certain that this is not a controversial matter in the sense of being a Party matter. I believe we are all concerned to do the best we can in this new era for the poor, in starting these new hospitals to put them upon the best footing, so that we can get the co-operation of everybody concerned. I think the objection that was raised by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, if it were well-founded, would be a very serious one. I cannot imagine anything more objectionable than the idea that the medical officers in charge of a hospital should have to consult some outside consultative body to determine what particular treatment they should render at any particular time to any particular patient in a bed; and if this proposal meant that I should consider it most objectionable. But it does not seem to me, with great respect, that the words suggested by Lord Hanworth can bear that meaning. It is not that the doctors or the staff are to consult anybody as to treatment; it is they who are responsible for the particular treatment. The council and the body may thank its stars that it is not responsible at all for the individual treatment, skilful or unskilful, given to patients. All this provides is that the council shall consult the body—shall, after consultation, do what? Make arrangements for carrying into effect the functions as to treatment. It seems to me, with great respect, that that does not give any chance of involving the county councils in the difficulties suggested by the noble Earl. It is only, and can only be, in respect to general provisions as to the arrangements that they think desirable for carrying into effect the functions of hospital accommodation and treatment. I venture to think that this is a most reasonable proposal to make and hope it will be adhered to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, as the question is of some legal importance perhaps your Lordships would permit me to say a few words about these two alternatives. I am only proposing to deal with two points. The first is the point of difference. In the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, consultation has to be with "such body or persons" as represent the hospitals, and under the Government Amendment with such body as the county councils "consider to represent" them. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, agreed with me, as I felt sure he would, that it was eminently undesirable that anybody should go to the Courts if there was a dispute as to which was the really representative body. I do not quite think that which is proposed would, if it were set down, completely cover the point. You are not dealing only with cases in which two rival bodies each claim to be representative. If you have to show, as a fact, that the council has consulted with a body which represents the voluntary hospitals, then it would be open to any one, when the council purported to spend money on a scheme after having, as they suggested, consulted with their representative body, to move for a writ of prohibition on the ground that they had never carried out the obligation imposed on them under Clause 13.

Clause 13 insists that they shall, after consultation, make provision with regard to hospital accommodation. Supposing they consult with some body who was not, in fact, in the view of the Court, a representative body: they have not carried out their statutory duty; and, as the noble and learned Marquess himself pointed out, the purpose of this is not to put compulsion on the county council to accept the suggestion. They are invited and directed to consult with the representatives of the hospitals, and then to take their own course after consultation. I should have suggested to your Lordships that you would get a better chance of the advice being accepted, and of the consultation taking place in a friendly spirit and with a full desire of getting the best out of it, if the persons whom the county council consulted were those whom they considered to he representative and not some body which they had thought was unrepresentative but which was forced upon them against their will by a decision from outside by the Minister. I am not suggesting that the Minister cannot make an admirable decision, but I am suggesting that, when you are directing the county council to take advice, and while not putting upon them any compulsion to accept the advice given, you desire that that advice should have the best effect on the county council, probably the wisest plan would be to let the people whom the county council consult be those whom the county council regard as representative of the voluntary hospitals in the area. That is all I desire to say about that.

I come now to the second point about which there has been a good deal of discussion and that is as to the provision of treatment. I am not quite sure how far there is a point of substance in difference here or how far it is a dispute as to language. The noble Lord, Lord Dawson, whose authority in these matters, of course, is unrivalled, said that the sort of thing that he wanted (I am not pinning him to precise language) was to ensure that consultation should not be limited to the actual fabric of the hospital but should also extend to the purpose for which the hospital was to be used: the function—to use his own phrase—to which it was to he assigned. He told your Lordships that he was advised that putting in the word "treatment" would ensure that and no more. On the other hand the Government, or the Ministry of Health, are advised that if you put in the word "treatment" and compel the county council to consult this outside body in regard to "carrying into effect the functions transferred to them … with respect to the provision of hospital accommodation and treatment," then the effect will be that the county council will be under statutory obligation to take the advice of this voluntary hospitals body with regard to the treatment which they have to provide by virtue of the express language of Clause 5 of the Bill.

The noble Lord said that that was the last thing he desired and the Government have pointed out—and I think your Lordships will agree—that it is a wholly impracticable suggestion. I gather that it is not desired really by any responsible body of opinion. The Government have said, through the noble Earl—I have not had the opportunity of consulting him about it because he and I have been separated and both rather busy— that they do not want consultation to be limited to the actual provision of the fabric and that they are quite content that it shall extend, indeed it seems obviously sensible that it should extend, to the function for which the particular fabric is to be assigned, the purpose for which the particular hospital is to be used. That, I gather, is what the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, desired. If that be so surely your Lordships would be wise not to insist on putting in words which the Government believe, and are advised, will have an effect which none of your Lordships desire, but rather you should accept words which I am quite sure can be devised to carry out what the noble Lord himself says he desires and which the Government are quite content to insert in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

Is it my noble and learned friend's view that the words "or treatment" in the collocation in which they stand would have the wide meaning attributed to them?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble and learned friend has asked me a legal question which I have only had the opportunity of considering whilst it was being discussed here. That is not quite adequate time to give a decided opinion, but I would like to go as far as this: I am not as satisfied as he is that they would not have that effect, especially having regard to the fact that Clause 13 is not dealing with the original administrative scheme. I have no doubt that if the clause had regard to the original scheme it would be held that the words dealt with a scheme which set out the way in which treatment was to be provided generally. But you have eight clauses dealing with that Part and then come, beginning with Clause 9, a series of miscellaneous provisions in which Clause 13 is included. When you find in Clause 13 in that series of miscellaneous provisions a provision that the council shall after consultation make such arrangement "for carrying into effect the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act," which include under Clause 5 the actual treatment of patients, I think, at any rate, I should want a great deal more consideration before I should be prepared to say that it could not be held that the provision of treatment might be included. I do not say the treatment of every individual patient, but the sort of treatment that was going to be provided of the different classes of patients under the functions dealt with in Clause 5.

I deliberately ask your Lordships not to ask me to express a concluded opinion about it, because I am very anxious never in this House to state an opinion on a question of law without having had full opportunity of considering it. I know your Lordships are good enough, whoever is on the Woolsack, to pay considerable attention to his opinion on points of law, and that makes me anxious not to say anything upon a point on which I have not had the opportunity of forming a concluded opinion. The noble and learned Marquess has great authority which I do not profess to claim, but even with that authority I would ask whether it is quite wise to put in words which the Ministry have been advised will have an effect which nobody desires, rather than give an opportunity for framing or finding language to express something which the Government have said they are willing to concede and which the noble Lord has already stated will satisfy all that he wishes. It would seem to me—I can only suggest it to your Lordships—that it might be possible to accept the clause which the Government are prepared to concede with the understanding that between now and Third Reading we shall make an effort in discussion with the noble Lord, and, of course with any one whom he wishes to share the discussion, with the object of finding words which will have the effect of bringing in the function to which the accommodation is to be assigned, and which will not be open to the risk of bringing in the interference with matters of detailed treatment which neither he nor, I gather, any one of your Lordships desires.

I think the convenient way to put the question, so as to save Lord Dawson's subsequent Amendment, would be to put the words down to "consultation" in Lord Hanworth's Amendment. If that is carried that would involve that Lord Hanworth's Amendment would be accepted rather than the Government Amendment, and there could be a discussion as to whether Lord Dawson's words should be accepted. The question I have to put is: Amendment moved, insert as a new clause, "The council of every county and county borough shall, after consultation."

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 11, insert as a new clause:—

Consultation as to the provision of hospital accommodation.

" . The council of every county and county borough shall, before making provision for hospital accommodation in discharge of the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act, consult with such committee or other body, if any, as they consider to represent both the governing bodies and the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals providing services in or for the benefit of the county or county borough."—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD DAWSON OF PENN had given Notice to move as Amendments to the proposed new clause, after "represent," to insert "a," and at the end to insert "and (b) the medical faculty

The House divided:—Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS.
Reading, M.	Novar, V.	Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
	Southwark, L. Bp.	Hemphill, L.
Beauchamp, E.		Jessel, L.
Buxton, E.	Arnold, L.	Marshall of Chipstead, L. [ Teller.]
Chesterfield, E.	Askwith, L.
Clarendon, E.	Atkin, L.	Monson, L.
De La Warr, E.	Bledisloe, L.	Muir Mackenzie, L.
Russell, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Parmoor, L.
Strafford, E.		Rathcreedan, L.
	Clwyd, L.	Remnant, L.
Churchill, V.	Cozens-Hardy, L.	Sandhurst, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Daryngton, L.	Stanmore, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Dawson of Penn, L.	Swaythling, L.
	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Tenterden, L.
Knutsford, V.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Thomson, L.
Leverhulme, V.	Hanworth L.	Tomlin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Hailsham, L. (Lord Chancellar.)	Stanhope, E.	Faringdon, L.
	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Salisbury, M. (Lord Privy Seal.)	Elibank, V.	Hampton, L.
	Falkland, V.	Hastings, L.
	Sidmouth, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Bath, M.		Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.
Bristol, M.	Addington, L.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
	Armstrong, L.	Lamington, L.
Airlie, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Ormathwaite, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Fortescue, E.	Cloncurry, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Iddesleigh, E.	Cranworth, L.
Iveagh, E.	Cushendun, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Lovelace, E.	Danesfort, L.	Saltoun, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Darling, L.	Sempill, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Davidson of Lambeth, L.	Templemore, L.
Midleton, E.	Desborough, L.	Wharton, L.
Northbrook, E.	Dynevor, L.	Wraxall, L.
Onslow, E.	Ernle, L.	Wynford, L.
Plymouth, E.

of any University which serves the area, and (c) the duly qualified medical practitioners in the area." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in contradistinction to the discussion which has just taken place I think that these Amendments will not give rise to controversy. May I first deal with (b)? The custom has arisen during many years to link up medical services in voluntary hospitals with the medical faculties of the Universities which are nearest to them. There is an obvious advantage in linking up the work of hospitals with the centres of learning. There is also an obvious advantage that the representatives of the faculty of medicine, who are concerned with the higher laboratory investigations and various forms of research, should be able to join in any representations by way of conference with the council.

Let me instance the City of Liverpool. Liverpool University, by means of its medical faculty, spreads its influence over seven or eight counties, and the hospitals in all that area turn to the University for advice and make use of its laboratories and teachers. It is obviously to the advantage of medicine, wherever it may be practised, that we should give full and adequate influence to those who carry out their lives in centres of learning. I do not wish to stress the point further. Representation of the medical faculty of a University which serves an area is desirable. It will not necessarily be confined to one particular county, for Cambridge, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, for instance, serve large areas.

The second point concerns the duly qualified medical practitioners in the area. I raised this point in the debate on the Committee stage. It must be borne in mind that the doctors who up to now have given their advice—and very excellent advice it is, for they are admirable in their own domain of preventive medicine—number over 1,700 in England and Wales, while the doctors who are concerned with curative medicine number something like 28,000. It seems reasonable to suppose, therefore, that, when you are going to add to the duties of these councils by assigning curative functions to the hospital work, there should be some representation of those people who spend their lives in dealing with disease and that it should not be left too exclusively, as heretofore, in the hands of the very excellent men whose knowledge and experience are limited to preventive medicine. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Amendment moved—

Line 6, after ("represent") insert ("(a)"). At end insert ("and (b) the medical faculty of any university which serves the area, and (c) the duly qualified medical practitioners in the area").—(Lord Dawson of Penn.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I am in a little difficulty in addressing your Lordships on this Amendment because it was only during the course of the debate that I received the Paper. It had not reached me before I came down to your Lordships' House, and therefore I am not fortified by long consideration of the various points which the noble Lord has raised. I will, how- ever, do my best to meet him in reply, because I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. I will endeavour to give such reasons as occur to me. There may be others which have not occurred to me, but, as I say, the Amendment has only just come to my notice. The first thing that the noble Lord wishes to do is to bring in the medical faculties of Universities which serve an area. He instanced Cambridge, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, and he says that the teaching profession at these Universities should be represented on the committee for consultation with the county council. Surely the point is already met, because the Amendment says:— and the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals providing services in or far the benefit of the county. Take the case of a hospital at Cambridge. I was not a Cambridge undergraduate myself, but I believe, subject to correction, that the representatives of the University whom the noble Lord seeks to add to this committee would come in under the clause as it stands. I should be surprised if that were not so. The noble Lord shakes his head and probably he is right. If they do not attend the hospitals usually, it is for those who do, who are attached to the hospitals, to be consulted by the council as the clause provides, for they are the hospital authorities. Those who are professors of medicine and so forth and are not attached to the hospitals are not concerned with the management of hospitals but with the medical education in the University, and I venture to think that the whole point is met by including in the committee those medical men who are conversant with hospitals and that it would be unwise to add to their number. The people whose advice we want are those who are intimately connected with the voluntary hospitals, administratively, financially and in a professional capacity. I should rather deprecate the addition of medical men, however eminent, whose connection with the hospitals is merely concerned with medical education.

LORD DAWSON OF PENN

Will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? I must remind him of the case of pathologists, of those who do laboratory work all over the county, of those who do bacteriological, chemical and radiological work. Pathologists are not neces- sarily on the staffs of the voluntary hospitals. You get, for instance, in the Universities the professors of bacteriology and their assistants, and those concerned with other sciences ancillary to that of medicine.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

If I understand the Amendment correctly, the noble Lord wishes that there should be representation on these committees of medical men who are not connected with hospitals.

LORD DAWSON OF PENN

Not connected with the wards and the actual treatment of patients.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

But connected with the hospitals in other ways. I do not know that this point would not be met by the clause. I come now to the second part of the Amendment, which raises quite a different point. The clause proposes to bring into these consultative committees those who are connected with the hospitals, and the noble Lord seeks in addition to bring in medical men who are not connected with the hospitals but who practice in the area. We think that this would lead to confusion and that it is undesirable that those who are not connected with the hospitals in any way should be brought in to manage the hospitals. We think that medical men connected with the hospitals who are invited to serve on these committees will be amply able to supply the advice which the councils will seek, and that if we invite those practising in the area as well as the hospital authorities we shall merely get a dual body of advisers. We feel that it is better to confine the consultative body to people who are intimate with the management of hospitals. For those reasons, which apply also in part to the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

May I, before we go to the next Amendment, call attention to the words "if any" in the Amendment of Lord Onslow. I understand that the noble Earl, without assenting to the argument, was willing to leave out the words "if any," and propose now to leave out those words.

Amendment to the Amendment moved—

Line 5 of the proposed new clause, leave out "if any".—(The Marquess of Reading.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I do not insist upon these words, although from the drafting point of view, I think they are desirable, but they are not of extreme importance. As the noble Marquess attaches importance to their omission I am glad to meet him in any way I can, and I will accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Recovery of expenses.

16.—(1) As from the appointed day, it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough and of every other local authority to recover from any person who has been maintained by them in any institution, other than a person who has become an inmate of an institution for the purpose of receiving treatment for infectious disease, or from any person legally liable to maintain that person, the whole of the expenses incurred by the council or authority in the maintenance of that person, or, if the council or authority are satisfied that the persons from whom the expenses are recoverable cannot reasonably, having regard to their financial circumstances, be required to pay the whole of those expenses, such part, if any, of the expenses as they are in the opinion of the council or authority able to pay.

LORD ARNOLD moved, at the beginning of the clause, to leave out "it shall be the duty of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have heard many important debates this afternoon, but I venture to think that the issue raised by this Amendment is of equal importance, and equally deserving of your Lordships' consideration. This clause, and this Amendment, were discussed on the Committee stage, and I have no intention whatever of arguing in detail what was then said. I have, for the most part, entirely new matter to bring forward for the consideration of your Lordships. The question is whether this clause, which relates to the recovery of expenses for treatment of patients in public health institutions, shall be mandatory, so far as the recovery of such expenses by local authorities is concerned, or discretionary. As the clause stands it is mandatory upon the local authority to recover reasonable expenses.

I wish to submit a very important point, which I think goes far to invalidate the reasons given by the Government for the mandatory powers of this clause. The Lord Chancellor, your Lordships will remember, chiefly based his case upon the fact that if the clause were not made mandatory there would be a difference between Poor Law and public health law as regards patients in institutions under treatment for various illnesses. The Lord Chancellor advanced that argument not only on my own Amendment but several times on an Amendment moved by my noble and learned Leader. I have looked at the debates in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that he referred no fewer than eight times to the fact that the Poor Law authorities were obliged to recover expenses. The Minister of Health said the same thing in pressing this clause in the House of Commons, and Sir Kingsley Wood said the same thing—that they were bound to recover expenses. They argued that unless this Clause 16 were made mandatory, instead of discretionary, then paupers would be in a worse position than people in public health institutions, and that as people in public health institutions were generally better off, such a thing could not be easily defended. Therefore, said the Lord Chancellor, this must be mandatory, in order to make the law uniform as between Poor Law and public health institutions.

What I have now to submit for consideration is that the matter has not been correctly put before your Lordships' House, and that Poor Law authorities are not bound to recover from persons receiving treatment in Poor Law institutions. I think the operative clause in this matter, so far as the Poor Law is concerned, is unquestionably Clause 44 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, and there the governing word is "may." The guardians "may" recover, not "shall" or "must" recover, but "may" recover. Therefore the clause is discretionary, and not mandatory, and the word "may" is the very word which I wish to insert in this clause. That is my Amendment, and I would submit that if we are to make the law uniform we must alter this clause by inserting the word "may" and making the clause discretionary instead of mandatory. Let me further add that at Common Law there is on the persons receiving it no liability for relief, and therefore I would submit there can be no duty to recover.

I would also call attention to two letters which were issued from the Ministry of Health in 1921, when much relief had to be given by guardians. These letters impressed upon the guardians the desirability, wherever practicable, of making relief in the form of loan, so as to be recoverable. If the guardians had an obligation to recover relief, and a right to recover it, why should those letters have been issued, and why should it have been impressed upon them that wherever practicable they should make relief in the form of loan? I thought this was a matter of importance, and I ventured to bring it before the notice of the Lord Chancellor, who received me most courteously and said he would look into it. If I am wrong in my interpretation of Clause 44 then, no doubt, the noble and learned Lord will show where I am wrong.

I know it may be argued that although the word is "may," so far as Poor Law guardians are concerned, the district auditor could surcharge if the guardians did not attempt to recover relief; but I think that is a contention which is quite inadmissible. It would mean, if it were to have operative effect, that we were not really in a matter like this governed by Parliament but by the district auditor. It would mean that Parliament had no power to make a discretionary provision which would be operative, because the district auditor would come along mid say: "You must do this or I will surcharge you," and then the implication would be that the matter would go to the Courts and the guardians would be surcharged. I am coming to that. It would come to this, that it would not matter whether Parliament put in "may" or "shall." It would also mean that there was no difference in operative effect between the Scottish and the English Bills, because your Lordships will remember that in the Scottish Bill this corresponding provision is discretionary and not mandatory.

But in point of fact there has never been a case of surcharge upon guardians for not endeavouring to recover expenses, and, if there were, I think it is quite clear that the law would not uphold that contention. As a matter of fact, it is clear that the power given to boards of guardians under Sections 44, 46, 47 of the Poor Law Act of 1927 is one in which a large amount of discretion is left as to its operation. It is known that in certain unions legal proceedings are never taken to recover the cost of relief, and no disallowance has been made. I am informed, for instance, that in a certain union—no doubt in a populous district, but there must be other similar cases—the exercise in a strict sense of the mandatory duty apparently to be imposed upon councils under this Bill would probably mean fifty County Court summonses a week. The fact is that the duty of the collector of the guardians, approved by the Ministry of Health, is to collect such sums of money as he may be directed to do by the guardians and the guardians, for instance, of the union of which I am giving an example, like most other large unions, have an Inmates Money Account, but nothing is charged in many cases. Money is taken from the inmate in certain cases, but nothing is charged in others.

No objection has ever been taken by the district auditor to this course, freely followed by the board of guardians, and no surcharge has ever been recorded. I contend that in those circumstances, even if the point is taken, which I believe it may have been under certain legal interpretations—of course I approach this matter with great diffidence, not being a lawyer—but even if the point is taken that the word "may" does in certain connotations of the law mean "shall" the reply is that in practice it does not here, and as a matter of fact it never has done so. If it is contended that "may" means "shall," so that the guardians must recover, the reply is that in many instances they do not recover. Therefore I say it is pretty clear that "may" cannot mean "shall."

If I am correct, I submit that this mandatory provision has been recommended to your Lordships on incorrect information, because, as I have shown, the Poor Law Act is not mandatory, and even in its discretionary form this provision to recover is often most leniently applied by some unions. Certain of them only charge in comparatively few cases, and never take legal proceedings to recover the cost of relief. Therefore Clause 16, with its mandatory provision, does not make the law uniform with the Poor Law, which was the main contention advanced by the Government, both here and in another place for making it mandatory; and it will mean in practice that there will be a totally different state of things so far as public health institutions are concerned from that which exists under Poor Law institutions. Therefore I say that the argument of uniformity goes. Thus I think there is a very strong case for this Amendment. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor will take the point that the district auditor might come along and attempt to settle the matter, but, if he does, let us leave it at that, and leave it to the district auditor to let it go to the Courts. If we cannot get anything better we should be quite prepared to take that. If the Lord Chancellor should contend that "may" in the Poor Law means "shall" the reply is—make the word as far as we are concerned "may," and then it will be on all fours with the Poor Law.

Before I sit down I must refer to the question of the Scottish Bill, because it is very relevant here. The corresponding clause there is discretionary. But would your Lordships please notice this very remarkable fact, that when the clause in the Scottish Bill was first put down by the Government it was mandatory, but it was changed. Certain Amendments were put down, and before they were reached the Government gave way under pressure. The clause as it was first put down on the Paper read: "It shall be the duty of," and it was changed to "It shall be lawful," that is to say, it was changed from being mandatory to being discretionary. Why should there be this differentiation between the Scottish Bill and the English Bill? There is no real difference in the conditions or procedure between the two countries to justify any such distinction. I think that noble Lords will be put in a most embarrassing position unless the clause is altered, because they will have to vote one way for England and another way for Scotland on precisely the same question. It was the recognition of this fact that led the Scottish Peers last week to say that, as they were not prepared to be put in that inconsistent position, they would vote for the Amendment moved from this side of the House, be- cause they certainly were not going to have the Scottish Bill made mandatory.

This matter is very important, because there is more in it than a question of uniformity or non-uniformity with the Poor Law. I have shown that if you want to be uniform you must alter the clause in the way in which I am urging. I must just remind your Lordships that the clause introduces new provisions which have not been in operation before. It now places a liability on relatives on a much larger scale than before, and it makes the average daily cost of treatment very much greater than it has been before, and all that is to be made mandatory if the clause is to remain as it is. The Lord Chancellor last week said he did not understand how it could be deterrent, but I say it is deterrent. This mandatory provision will mean that tens of thousands of persons who need treatment, and ought to have it, both for their own sakes and for the sake of the community, will not go into public health institutions, because there is an actually mandatory provision that as much money as possible must be got out of them for their treatment. That is a great change. Whereas, if the clause is left discretionary there will be a much wiser administration of a provision like this—wiser for the patients, and wiser in the public interests. We feel that, unless the clause is changed in the way that I have urged this provision will prove in practice to be harmful to the public health. Taking all these considerations together I venture to submit this Amendment to your Lordships with confidence.

Amendment moved— Page 13, lines 11 and 12, leave out "it shall be the duty of".—(Lord Arnold.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, as the noble Lord has truly said, this Amendment was exhaustively debated in Committee six days ago, and was rejected by a majority of 3 to 1. Of course, it is open to any noble Lord to bring the matter up afresh, and the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment brings it up on the ground, which, if true, would be a very relevant ground, that the information given to your Lordships as to the position of the law was inaccurately stated. The noble Lord was good enough to come and see me yesterday, and tell me that he had had his attention called to a case which he thought showed that the law was different from that which I have stated. The case was that of the Pontypridd Guardians versus Drew, reported in 1927, 1 King's Bench, Court of Appeal. Thanks to the courtesy of the noble Lord, I have had an opportunity of looking at the case, and I have written to the noble Lord to point out that, in fact, that case has nothing to do with the question which we are discussing. The question which we are discussing is, and the statement I made last week was, that there is a statutory liability placed upon the guardians to recover the amount of relief paid out by them from such persons.

The case of the Pontypridd Guardians versus Drew was a case in which, the relief having been granted in the year 1921, an attempt was made in the year 1925 to get the money back. No attempt was or could be made to get it back under the statutory powers of the guardians because those statutory powers only exist for twelve months and the attempt was made more than four years after the grant of relief. An attempt, therefore, was made to get it back on the ground of there being a Common Law liability apart from Statute. There had been two earlier decisions which said that a Common Law liability existed. The Court of Appeal in 1927, reversing those earlier decisions, held that there was no such Common Law liability and that the only liability was a statutory liability. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of what I said last week, your Lordships will see that I never discussed a Common Law liability at all. I should like to quote the exact words I used— Under the existing law guardians are under a statutory obligation to recover from persons to whom they supply relief and from persons who are legally liable to maintain those persons the cost of providing that relief. So that the case to which the noble Lord has been good enough to call my attention does not really apply.

The noble Lord says that if you look at this Statute it uses the word "may," and he asks, "What is the good of Parliament saying 'may' if the law says 'shall'?" The noble Marquess was good enough to inform us last week that there are a good many Statutes in which the word "may" has been construed as meaning "shall"; the principle being that where people are entrusted with power for the benefit of others or for the benefit of the public, or for the benefit of some class of persons, and a quasifiduciary relationship is involved, then they have the duty as regards those persons of exercising the powers with which they have been entrusted for the benefit of those persons. Therefore, they are bound by their duty to exercise the powers, and the effect of conferring the powers upon them is to confer upon them also the obligation to exercise the powers.

In regard to the actual point as to the Poor Law, it is curious that one of the early cases in which that principle was established was actually a Poor Law case, though not a case in which an attempt was made to recover money from the persons to whom relief had been granted, but a case in which under the old law it was provided that it should be lawful for the churchwardens or overseers to make a rate in order to reimburse constables or others who had made claims, by way of Poor Law relief. The decision was that where a Statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word "may" is the same as the word "shall." Therefore, although the provision was only "it shall be lawful" the Court held that there was an obligation upon the persons in question to exercise the power. It is not necessary, I hope, to go through the whole series of cases. I think I have accurately stated the principle and although I was challenged last week in this House, I think it is accepted universally that the statutory power in the guardians is one which they are under a statutory duty to exercise in such cases as it is possible for them to recover the money. It is said by the noble Lord that there is a union which so lightly regards its duty that under the powers of the Bill there may be fifty County Court summonses a week. That can only mean that there is an enormous number of people in that union to whom relief is being granted who have the money to pay for it themselves. If that be so, I would add that the guardians are acting in broach of the law and I hope that they will not have much longer in which to do it.

In regard to the Scottish Bill, I ventured to say last week, and I repeat, that I do not think it is possible for me to discuss what is or what is not in the Scottish Bill. I do not profess to know what the Scottish law is upon these matters. It is not necessarily the same as the English law. I do not know what reasons there may have been for introducing any Amendments that may have been introduced or what considerations may have influenced those responsible for accepting those Amendments. I do not even know what the effect of the Amendments would be. I think it is sufficient to say, whilst we are discussing the English Bill let us settle what is right from the English point of view and then when Scotland comes along I have no doubt she will be very well able TO take care at herself. With regard to the other arguments of the noble Lord, I think I may say without discourtesy to him, that they are the same arguments as those which he adduced last week upon practically the same Amendment and my answer could only be the same as I gave then. 1 do not think I should be justified, in view of the great amount of business your Lordships have to get through, in occupying your Lordships' time by repeating them over again.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, I do not desire for one moment to discuss or to question what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord with regard to the law. I have not intervened in this debate for the purpose of dealing with that. I take the law as laid down by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack who has given it his most careful consideration. What troubles me in this discussion is the disregard of my noble and learned friend for all that has happened to the Scottish Bill. He seems to say, "Do not trouble me with the Scottish Bill; the Scotch may have different law and maxims. I am only dealing with the English Bill which I have had to study and with which I am familiar. Leave me and the other authorities concerned to deal with the Scottish Bill whim it comes up." On studying the Scottish Bill with a little care one is rather puzzled as to why it is, may I say not for the first time, that Scotland is given what England is not given. I have bean looking for the moment only at the clause dealing with this matter. No doubt, when we get to the Second Beading of the Scottish Bill, there will be opportunities of making a comparison between the various clauses of the Bills. I am not desirous of availing myself of that opportunity at the moment.

May I call your Lordships' attention to the point we are discussing? If we read the Bill it is, as I understand, that instead of saying "it shall be the duty of the council," we should say "the council may" or, to put it in other words, "it shall be lawful." As I understand my noble friend who moved this Amendment, that is all he desires to do. He would be quite content, I gather, if, instead of using the word "may," the words were "it shall be lawful." I do not desire to enter into a contest as to the interpretation of the word "may" with my noble and learned friend opposite. If there is not a difference, as one might imply from some of the arguments used, why should not we adopt the phraseology "it shall be lawful"; If they mean the same thing, why then it is just as easy to accept the Amendment. Although it is possible that in certain cases they may be interpreted as meaning the same thing—that is as imposing a mandatory duty upon the council—in other circumstances the Courts would hold that the word "may" is discretionary. It is very difficult to lay down a rule.

Lawyers of great distinction have had to consider this point, and have always been troubled by it, but the essential difference is that in the one case if you say "it shall be the duty" that means it is a mandatory obligation, and, if you do not perform it, then the Courts can be appealed to for what is termed a mandamus calling upon you to do it. If you say "it shall be lawful" for the council to do a thing, it imposes a discretion, and in certain circumstances, according to principles laid down by the Court, that discretion may be regarded as an obligation, as the learned Lord Chancellor has said—and I accept it from him—and would impose a duty. But there is that essential difference between the language. Let us see what happens. In the English Bill, which we are now considering, the words are "As from the appointed day it shall be the duty of the council of every county…to recover from any person who has been maintained," and then there is a qualification at the end which limits the character of the obligation imposed by allowing the authority only to recover such expenses as they think can reasonably be paid having regard to the circumstances. There is first the duty, then they are not bound to recover everything; they are only bound to recover what they think can reasonably be paid by the patient. Apparently the Scottish Bill uses the same language, but hero I am not speaking of my own knowledge, because I have not looked for this purpose at the Scottish Bill as it was originally issued, but I take it from my noble friend who tells me that is how it was issued.

Again, in the Scottish Bill, the words appeared, "it shall be the duty." But when the Bill came up for discussion—I suppose it was because of the great eloquence and persuasive powers of the Scottish members and also because perhaps of fear of them on the part of the Minister—apparently the language was changed, and, instead of being as it is in the English Bill, the clause being otherwise almost ipsissima verba what is in the English Bill, it was made to include the qualification to which I have called your Lordships' attention—that is, that they would only be bound to recover what could reasonably be paid in the circumstances. In the English Bill the thing that is changed as compared with the Scottish Bill is the very thing that my noble friend's Amendment now seeks to alter. Instead of saying "it shall be the duty" as the English Bill does, the Scottish Bill says it shall be lawful for the county council to recover from any person who has been maintained by them in any institution a reasonable charge in respect of the expenses incurred, or, if they are satisfied such expenses cannot be paid, then "such as they can reasonably pay." All that my noble friend requires to be done in the English Bill is what has already been done in the Scottish Bill and apparently by the Government itself.

What puzzles me—perhaps one of our distinguished Scottish friends present will explain it—is why the English Bill should not be in the same form as the Scottish Bill. What is the precise difference between the authorities in Scotland and the authorities here that in the one case you must have the word "shall" and in the other that it should be discretionary? submit it does re- quire some explanation. When the Scottish Bill comes before us it will interest me, as I am sure it will your Lordships, to hear what the explanation of the difference is. For the moment, however, we are dealing with this Bill and the Amendment, as I understand it, is asking that we should do the same thing in England as the Government has already agreed to do in Scotland. I submit there ought not to be this difference and that we ought to have the same language and the same power given to the council.

LORD PARM0OR

My Lords, the substance of this matter is extremely important. The question is whether poor people, amongst others, are to have the benefit of this hospital treatment or not. It is quite clear, if it is the duty of the council of every county to recover the charges either from the patients or from their relatives or friends, that it is a very serious matter indeed, not only for the patients themselves but also for those who are earring for them. I do not want to repeat what the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has said, but let us take that as the major factor. Is there any reason why there should be any difference in these two Bills? We cannot shut out that consideration. It is impossible to shut our eyes to what has been proposed in the Scottish Bill. I think the matter is largely before your Lordships and I do not desire to detain you any longer, but I sincerely hope the mandatory words will not be retained.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I really thought that some noble Lord representing the Government would have the courtesy to say another word on the matter and to deal to some extent with the argument of the noble Marquess. I confess that I was astonished at the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I do not know whether it was because of the badness of his case, but he began a little ungraciously by saying that the matter occupied a long time in Committee and had been very fully discussed. I would point out that the discussion only occupies four or five coloumns in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which as your Lordships know does not represent a very long time. He did not recognise—he minimised, as I am not surprised—the entire change in the situation from the atmosphere in which we discussed it in Committee. He kept on telling us again and again and again that there was this imperative obligation on the Poor Law authorities to recover these expenses. I do not know whether he maintains that attitude now.

He never told your Lordships that the word in the relevant Statute was "may." I do not know whether he maintains now that the word "may" can be interpreted to mean that they shall and must recover the expenses. I do not know whether there is any instance of a mandamus directed to a board of guardians who had failed to recover these expenses, and we have not heard from him whether there has been any surcharge by an auditor because they failed to carry out this imperative duty to recover expenses. I think he did not quite see the implication of all these arguments, because if "may" and "shall" mean the same thing, why will not the Government put "may" in this Bill? Really we are entitled to some answer on the matter, and we are entitled to ask why they have put it in the Scottish Bill. I assume it is a matter of principle on their part, but if the two words have the same meaning why will they not put in "may"? We attach importance to it. The whole contention of the noble and learned Lord was that it does not matter a halfpennyworth which word is used. Very well, let them put in "may." We ask for it. I really think that the Pontypridd case to which he referred had nothing to do with it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The only reason I referred to the Pontypridd case was that a noble colleague of the noble Earl called my attention to it yesterday to show that my contention was wrong. I had to explain that it had nothing to do with it.

LORD ARNOLD

As I have been referred to may I be allowed to say that I was very courteously received by the noble and learned Lord and we had a long discussion in which the Pontypridd case was mentioned. This morning he kindly sent me a letter dealing with that case, but saying nothing about the other argument. I was very busy and I asked that it should be conveyed to the Lord Chancellor that I was not at all convinced by the Pontypridd case, but that in any event it was only part of the case, and I never mentioned it in the House. If I had time I should be glad to go into it because I was quite dissatisfied with what the Lord Chancellor said about it this evening.

EARL RUSSELL

I am certainly not going to be diverted from the course of my argument into South Wales. It is too troublous a country. But it is, I think, a different position when we know what the Statute is and how these things stand, and I do not think it is very courteous to your Lordships when this discussion takes place, in which I think we have not wasted any time, that the Government should pay no attention to it whatever beyond saying that the word means nothing and there is no difference. The noble and learned Lord drew a most moving picture of the necessity of

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "inmate," to insert "of a maternity home or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very simple Amendment with a very simple object and I should be very glad if the Government could see their way to accept it. Its object is to remove from chargeability the inmate of a maternity home. Your Lordships will 'appreciate that the argument by which one assumes it should be supported is that it is to the public interest that no sort of deterrent should

uniformity and the dreadful position in which a person in one bed had to be charged while a person in a neighbouring bed did not have to be charged because they came under different provisions. Let me appeal to the same principle of uniformity. The Poor Law says "may." Let us say "may" and the two persons in neighbouring beds will have uniformity. Of course if the Government merely rely on their majority and do not care to answer our case we must leave it at that.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.
Hailsham L. (L. Chancellor.)	Churchill, V.	Dynevor, L.
	Falkland, V.	Ernle, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Falmouth, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	Knutsford, V.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Bath, M.	Novar, V.	Faringdon, L.
Bristol, M.	Peel, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Winchester, M.	Sidmouth, V.	Hampton, L.
		Hanworth, L.
Airlie, E.	Armstrong, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Bledisloe, L.	Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.
Fortescue, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	Jessel, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Lamington, L.
Iveagh, E.		Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)
Lovelace, E.	Cushendun, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Darling, L.	Remnant, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Daryngton, L.	Templemore, L.
Onslow, E.	Desborough, L.	Wraxall, L.
Plymouth, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Reading, M.	Leverhulme, V.	Muir Mackenzie, L.
		Parmoor, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Arnold, L.	Sandhurst, L.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.]	Clwyd, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Russell, E.	Cozens-Hardy, L.	Swaythling, L.
		Thomson, L.

be placed in the way of a pregnant woman going into a maternity home and having her child born under the best conditions. That is in the interest not only of the mothers of the country but still more of the next generation.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 15, after ("inmate") insert ("of a maternity home or").—(Earl Russell.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, this would be a departure from the present practice. It is now the universal practice at voluntary maternity homes to require the inmates or their relatives to pay what they can afford. They are asked to pay sometimes directly and sometimes through the almoner. I was Chairman of the Lying-in Hospital for fourteen years and this practice was instituted and voluntary payments were made of a very satisfactory character. I do not think anybody suggested that they should not be asked to contribute. Under the system of percentage grants it is a condition that the authorities who manage the maternity home shall recover from the inmates what they are able to pay. There are same sixty or seventy of these homes. All the authorities recover appropriate contributions, unless they are satisfied in any particular case that the woman or her relatives cannot afford to pay. It is all purely on the basis of what the woman can afford to pay. The same discretion will be given under the Bill. We can trust the local authorities. They have managed these maternity homes for a long time and they will not fix the contributions at too high a rate. There is no reason to believe that the inclusion of maternity homes will be detrimental to maternal welfare. It has not proved so in the past and I do not see why we should apprehend any such state of affairs in the future. We must adhere to the provisions of the Bill and I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), after "disease," to insert "or any other disease to which the Minister may consider it desirable in the public interest to apply this exception." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is down on the Paper because the noble Earl opposite was good enough to say he would consider this matter between the Committee stage and Report stage. It has to do with the definition of the words "infectious disease." As it stands the definition is ambiguous and unsatisfactory and I am confirmed in this view by my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn, who said last week that it would be impossible to draw up a list of what the medical profession regarded as infectious diseases because knowledge was ever growing. You might put something in the Bill now and find that an amending Bill would be necessary next year. Therefore, some words like these should be inserted to give the Minister power to deal with other diseases by putting them on the same footing as infectious diseases so that the patient would have no charge made against him for the treatment.

The matter is particularly important with regard to surgical tuberculosis. The word "tuberculosis" covers various forms of that disease. Although in another place the Government have said, without committing themselves, that tuberculosis covers both pulmonary and surgical tuberculosis, and, although the Memorandum on which the Bill is founded suggests that tuberculosis would be covered by the words "infectious disease," there is very grave doubt whether surgical tuberculosis would be covered. As I understand it, many forms of surgical tuberculosis are not infectious and that is why I would like this power to be given to the Minister. If the words simply remain as they are in the Bill at the present time, a district auditor, who surcharged some authority for not seeking to recover expenses from a patient suffering from surgical tuberculosis, would have a very strong case. The matter would go to the Courts and the Courts would say: "It is no doubt very desirable that this particular disease should come under this provision, but the words are 'infectious disease' and surgical tuberculosis is not infectious and, therefore, though we are very sorry, we must decide against the authority." The noble Lord will remember the Cockerton injunction. There may be some budding Cockerton lurking in the background waiting to immortalise himself. Why should it not be made clear?

Then there is the question of cancer. The governing principle here, as I understand it, is that there are certain diseases which in the public interest should be treated quickly and well. Every opportunity should be given to persons to go and get that treatment. Cancer comes into that category. There may be objections to putting specific diseases into the Bill and therefore I have devised this form of words which would give the Minister power, in the public interest, to give this exemption from charges to such diseases as from time to time he might consider fit. Persons suffering from these diseases would then not be debarred by any fear of expense but would go in and get treatment which would be good for them in the public interest. I hope therefore the Government will accept this Amendment or a form of words like it.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 17, after ("disease") insert ("or any other disease to which the Minister may consider it desirable in the public interest to apply this exception").—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, the same considerations which arose in the case of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, arise again here. Nobody would minimise for an instant the distressing nature of the diseases to which the noble Earl has alluded. He brought this point up on Committee stage. It was a new point to us and I was very glad indeed to consider it and to see if by any possibility I was able to meet his wishes. I am afraid I am unable to do so. The point is this. This clause deals with cases of infectious disease. The criterion as to whether expenses should be recovered or not is this. An infectious disease is a disease against which it is desirable to safeguard other persons. In the case of the diseases which the noble Lord mentions, the criterion is not that which is contemplated. All that is sought under the clause is to recover such reasonable expenses as a person can afford. In the case of cancer, distressing as the disease is, we have not an infectious disease, or at least, as Lord Dawson of Penn told us last week, it is not so considered, and therefore I feel that we could not include it in the clause.

I understand that some forms of tuberculosis are infectious, while some forms of surgical tuberculosis are not infectious, and therefore it seems that the proper course is to lay down a criterion that will safeguard other persons, leaving it within the competence of the local authority to decide what is an infectious disease and what is not. It cannot be closely laid down in the Bill because, as Lord Dawson pointed out, knowledge is changing from month to month and diseases that are not now regarded as infectious might be so regarded later. Such diseases would then automatically come within the scope of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, after subsection (1), to insert:— Provided that any such council or authority may, by agreement with the governing body of any association or fund established for the purpose of providing benefits to members or other beneficiaries thereof, accept from the association or fund, in respect of the expenses incurred by the council or authority in the maintenance of any member or beneficiary of the association or fund, payment of such sums as may be provided by the agreement, in lieu of recovering the whole or any part of the said expenses from the member or beneficiary, or from any person legally liable to maintain him.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in effect this Amendment is the same as that which was put down on a previous occasion, and I understand from the noble Earl that he is prepared to accept it. It is therefore unnecessary for me to say anything further.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18:

Application to London.

18. This Part of this Act shall apply to the County of London subject to the following modifications:— (b) the administrative scheme may make provision for the appointment of local or other sub-committees of the public assistance committee consisting wholly or partly of members of the public assistance committee and for the functions of any such sub-committee, and for the reference or delegation by the London County Council to any committee of that council (including the public assistance committee) of any of the functions transferred to the council under this Part of this Act except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money:

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out "appointment of local or other sub-committees of the Public Assistance Committee consisting wholly or partly of members of the Public Assistance Committee and for the functions of any such sub-committee, and for the." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment, which I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, is merely one more step in the direction of decentralisation.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 29, leave out from ("the") to ("reference") in line 33.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I am prepared to accept this and the following Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 39, at end insert:— ("(c) the administrative scheme may make provision for the appointment—

1. (i) of sub-committees of the public assistance committee (in this section referred to as 'local committees') consisting wholly or partly of members of that committee; and
2. (ii) of sub-committees of local committees, consisting wholly or partly of members of the local committees;

for the functions of such local committees and for the discharge by the sub-committees thereof of any of the functions which, under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, are to be discharged by guardians committees or sub-committees thereof").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22:

Conversion of registration officers into salaried officers.

(3) Where the office of a registration officer becomes a salaried office— (c) the fees payable under sections twenty-nine and thirty-four of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1836, as amended by any subsequent enactment shall cease to be payable in respect of the office.

LORD ARNOLD moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this deals with a seemingly small point, and there may be some satisfactory explanation, but one effect of the payment of fixed salaries to registration officers by local authorities would be that the fees at present payable by the Treasury to the Superintendent Registrar will not be paid; and to the extent of the loss of that contribution there would clearly be a consequential increase in the charge on the local rates. For instance, it is estimated that approximately 10 per cent, of the remuneration of Superintendent Registrars will, under the provisions of the Bill, be removed from the Exchequer to the local rates. I should like to know if this has been carefully worked out and taken into account in fixing the grants. How is this matter adjusted? Is it going to be an increased charge to the local authority and a saving to the Exchequer, or what is going to happen? In order to raise the point, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 23, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I do not quite see why it should be suggested that fees should be continued to be paid by the council or by the Exchequer to an officer who is already receiving adequate remuneration in the form of a salary. If the fees were paid the registration officer would be receiving excessive remuneration, as he would be getting fees and salary as well. If these fees, as well as the fees payable by the public, were surrendered to the council, we should have the result of the council paying statutory fees to the registration officer, who is obliged by Statute to return them to the council. As far as the Amendment relates to Exchequer fees and is intended to secure that the council should collect, via the registration officer, the fees which are at present paid to him from the Exchequer, the answer is chat Part II of the Bill is governed by the financial arrangements applicable to the Bill as a whole, and that the Exchequer grants for which the Bill provides are intended to assist the council to defray the expenses of registration no less than their other expenses. There is no case for augmenting the general Exchequer contribution to local authorities' expenses in the manner suggested. I think the whole thing is covered by the clause as it stands.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 29:

County roads.

29.—(1) Every road which at the appointed day is a main road, or which would, apart from this section, at any time thereafter have become a main road, and every road as respects which a county council become by virtue of this Part of this Act the highway authority, shall be termed a county road, and the county council shall, in relation to county roads, have the like functions as with respect to main roads, and all enactments relating to main roads shall as from the appointed day have effect as if for references therein to main roads there were substituted references to county roads.

(2) Every county road in a county and the materials thereof and all drains belonging thereto shall (except where an urban district council have claimed or are deemed to have claimed to exercise the functions of maintaining the road), vest in the county council, and where any other drain or any sewer is used for any purpose in connection with the drainage of any such road, the county council shall continue to have the right of using the drain or sewer for such purpose.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to omit the words "the county council shall, in relation to county roads, have the like functions as with respect to main roads, and". The noble Earl said: This is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. I hope that it will give him satisfaction.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 22, leave out from ("and") to ("all") in line 24.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, I think this meets my point and I am much obliged to the noble Earl.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, my next Amendment to this clause, in subsection (2), is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 28, leave out from the beginning to ("vest") in line 32, and insert— ("(2) The council of every county shall, in relation to county roads in the county (not being roads with respect to which an urban district council have claimed or are deemed to have claimed to exercise the functions of maintenance and repair) have the like functions as with respect to main roads and all roads in relation to which they have those functions and the materials thereof and all drains belonging thereto shall").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to insert after subsection (2):— (3) Section one hundred and nineteen of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (which relates to the maintenance of borough bridges), shall cease to have effect as respects any bridge which carries a county road, and notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section thirty-five of the Local Government Act, 1888, no borough shall be exempt from contributing towards the costs incurred by a county council for the purpose of the maintenance, repair and improvement of, or other dealing with, bridges.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the joint effect of the Act of 1882 and of the Act of 1888 is that certain Quarter Session boroughs exceeding 10,000 in population in the year 1881 are responsible for he maintenance of bridges carrying roads which under the provisions of the Bill will become county roads. This liability may carry with it an exempton from the county bridge rate. It may be mentioned that under the definite clause of the Bill "road," save as otherwise expressly provided, includes any bridge carrying the road.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 36, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32:

Rights of certain, urban district councils to maintain county roads.

(6) For the purposes of this section—

1. (a) the expression "road" does not include county bridges; and
2. (b) the population of an urban district shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be ascertained according to the last census for the time being:

Provided that the population of any urban district at the appointed day shall be taken to be the estimated population of that district for the year nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 14, leave out ("and") and insert ("any").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD JESSEL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "or the population thereof according to the Census of nineteen hundred and twenty-one, whichever is the greater." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Askwith. It is really a very simple Amendment and is especially directed to the case of the borough of Brighouse in Yorkshire, which in 1921 had a population exceeding 20,000 and in 1928 was just below that figure. It is hoped that by the appointed day the population will come up to 20,000. It is to meet cases of this kind that the Amendment is moved.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 20, at end insert ("or the population thereof according to the Census of nineteen hundred and twenty-one, whichever is the greater").—(Lord Jessel.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. This would be to meet the case of a town with a declining population.

LORD JESSEL

They hope it will go up.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

No doubt they have that wish, but the point is that it is a declining population, and for that reason I am afraid I could not accept the Amendment, which would be contrary to the intention of the Bill.

LORD JESSEL

In those circumstances, although I am very sorry for the town in this case, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33:

Contributions by county councils to county roads maintained by urban district council.

33.—(1) Where an urban district council are in pursuance of the last foregoing section of this Act responsible for the maintenance and repair of a county road within their district, the county council shall— (b) contribute towards the expenses of any improvement of the road, not being expenses in connection with the maintenance and repair of the road, in any such case and to such extent (if any) as, failing agreement between the urban district council and (be county council, may be determined by the Minister of Transport; and the Minister of Transport in making his determination shall have regard to the extent to which the improvement is required for the purposes of through traffic and local traffic respectively, and to the extent to which the improvement is of the nature of a town improvement.

EARL FORTESCUE rose to move, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:— Provided that nothing in this section shall impose or be deemed to impose upon a county council any obligation to contribute towards the cost of the purchase of land and buildings in connection with the improvement of a county road for the maintenance and repair of which an urban district council are responsible in pursuance of the last foregoing section of this Act.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is one to which the County Councils Association attach a good deal of importance, and it is owing to a misapprehension that it is not moved by Lord Strachie.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I understand that this Amendment is of some importance, and may perhaps lead to a discussion, and we might be deprived of some part of our dinner hour, which I think would be a pity. I may take this opportunity of saying, before your Lordships separate, that the pace has not been quite so quick as I had hoped, and I shill have to ask your Lordships to sit on Monday to complete the Report stage of the Bill.

[The Sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]

EARL FORTESCUE

My Lords, this Amendment is one which was put down by my noble friends Lord Strachie and Lord Cottesloe on behalf of the County Councils Association, but owing, I think, to a misunderstanding they did not move it at the time and I thought it desirable to put it down for discussion now on Report. It is obvious that the only schemes of this character about which county councils are unlikely to agree with urban councils will be those which are of an unusually ambitious character, and as to them the county councils are left entirely to the discretion of the Minister of Transport. The present Minister of Transport, unfortunately, is not immortal and it seems desirable, therefore, that there should be some definition of the limits within which he may exercise his discretion.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 43, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Fortescue.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This Amendment will have the effect of absolving the county council from contributing towards the cost of land for widening a road in a. claimed area even though the widening of that road was done for the purpose of enabling the main traffic to pass through it and not for the purposes of the urban district where the road was claimed. This particular matter received considerable attention from the Royal Commission on Local Government, not during the second part of their Report but during the first, and that Commission contained representatives of all the associations of local governing bodies and they signed the Report with unanimity. The few words which are relevant to it and which appeared in the Report are as follows:— In dealing with differences arising under this head, the Minister would no doubt pay due regard to the question whether an improvement is required wholly or mainly on account of the traffic which passes through or into the urban area, or wholly or mainly on account of the traffic within the urban area. In the latter case and in the case of any improvement which is commonly called town's improvement"— that is to say a local improvement— we hold that the whole or part of the cost should be left to fall upon the ratepayers in the urban area as distinct from the county ratepayers in the whole of the county. In these circumstances, in view of the finding of the Royal Commission, I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 38[Savings as to highways repairable by persons other than highway authorities]:

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

There are two drafting Amendments to this clause.

Amendments moved—

Page 37, line 15, leave out ("not being a highway authority") Page 37, line 16, at end insert ("not repairable by the inhabitants at large").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to add to the clause: (2) For the purpose of this section, the expression 'highway' includes any bridge carrying the highway.

The noble Earl said: This is required to make it clear that a bridge which is not repairable by the inhabitants at large also falls within the scope of the clause.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 36, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Power of county councils to act jointly with other local authorities in preparation of adoption of a town planning scheme]:

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 12, after ("1925") insert ("or any corresponding enactment repealed by that Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40 [Power to combine councils for the purposes of town planning schemes]:

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 12, at end insert ("or under any corresponding enactment repealed by that Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 49, to insert:—

Reports and returns.

"The council of any county or borough, or of any district, and the Common Council of the City of London and the council of any metropolitan borough shall make to the Minister such reports and returns and give him such information with respect to their functions as he may require."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this clause is to place upon county councils and the public health authorities the obligation to make such reports and returns to the Minister and to give him such information with respect to their functions as he may require. This provision is rendered necessary by the fact that under the Poor Law Act, 1927, the Minister has the fullest powers of requiring information from the authorities, but there is no corresponding provision either in the Public Health Act or in the Local Government Act, 1888. Therefore, this Amendment is necessary to make that clear.

Amendment moved— Page 45, after Clause 49 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60:

Supervision of midwives.

60.—(1) If the council of any district have established a maternity and child welfare committee and employ a medical officer of health who, by the terms of his appointment, is restricted from engaging in private practice, the council may apply to the Minister to be made the local supervising authority under the Midwives Acts, 1902 to 1926, and the Minister, if, after consulta- tion with the county council he is satisfied that the district council are in a position to discharge the whole of the functions of a local supervising authority under those Acts, may, by order, direct that the council shall become the local supervising authority for the district in place of the county council, and provide for the manner in which the expenses of the district council and the county council under those Acts are to be defrayed.

(2) Where an order has been wade under the foregoing subsection, the Minister may at any time, if he is satisfied that the functions of the local supervising authority should be retransferred to the county council, make a further order revoking the original older, and thereupon the county council shall again become the local supervising authority under the said Acts.

LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved, after "If the council of any district," to insert "being a local education authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords, owing lo the absence of my noble friends Lord Halsbury and Lord Parmoor, I have been asked to move this Amendment, which is a very important one. Your Lordships may remember that on the Committee stage we concentrated on the question of a local inquiry and so there was no discussion really of this question. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, put the case extremely well. I shall not refer to what he said beyond saying that he laid great stress on the importance of larger areas for the control of midwives, that if you were not to have the council area you ought at all events to have the largest areas possible as it would cause less friction and overlapping. He pointed out that by the Midwives Act, 1902, smaller areas were permitted, but that everyone of the ten counties that adopted them had given them up. I also pointed out then that in Hertfordshire very great importance is attached to the question of larger areas and that they are very loth to see the inspection of midwives transferred from the county council to another body. It works exceedingly well with the county council and they doubt very much whether it would work well with smaller areas.

The object of this Amendment, as will be clear to your Lordships, is to reduce the number of the smaller districts which could apply for the inspection of midwives. But there is, of course, a matter of far greater importance than that—it improves the quality of the smaller areas. I have referred to the question of the local inquiry; but I should like to say that I am exceedingly grateful to the Government for having met us in that matter. I am afraid they may think that I am rather looking a gift horse in the mouth when I bring forward an Amendment; but it is a very important one and I would appeal to the Government to consider it.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 1, after ("district") insert ("being a local education authority").—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, perhaps I may cover all the Amendments together. I am, as the noble Lord said, practically accepting the Amendment which he has put down in regard to the local inquiry with one slight alteration—"if applied to by the county council." The district councils are the people who apply; therefore it is unnecessary to put in district council, but we will come to that when the Amendment is called on. I do not know whether the noble Lord insists upon this Amendment strongly. It does not really affect a very large number of authorities. There are only 139 of these authorities, and all but 32 are educational authorities. This clause would only affect six or seven large authorities who do not happen to be education authorities. There is one of over 40,000, and a good many of over 20,000. If the noble Lord could see his way to accept the Bill as it is I think it would avoid hardship to certain authorities. These are exceptional committees, and it would be impossible to insert them by name, but it is those to which this refers. I hope very much we shall be able to agree about this clause.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I am not quite certain what this refers to. We had considerable discussion upon the position of midwives, and I should be very glad if the noble Earl would be good enough to assure me upon this matter. I think the House generally agreed in Committee that midwives should not be relegated against their wishes to an authority in which they had not a great deal of confidence. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill promised that he would consider the position in regard to midwives and I hope he will be able to tell me that nothing that transpired on that occasion is interfered with by this Amendment or the clause we are now considering.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I can only address your Lordships again by permission. In this clause we are dealing with the local education authority and this is rather a different point from that referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp.

LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON

May I say that I am very grateful to the Government for having agreed to the local inquiry. That meets the greater part of what we desire and I do not wish to press the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "after consultation with the county council." The noble Earl said: I have explained this already and I hope it will meet with your Lordships' approval. It is a necessary Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 51, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("after consultation with the county council").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (1), to insert; (2) Before making an order under the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall consult with the county council and shall, if requested by them, hold a local inquiry.

The noble Earl said: This and the following Amendment are consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(The, Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 51, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("the foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ERNLE moved, after Clause 68, to insert the following new clause:— . Where after the appointed day an application for the redemption of any lay tithe rentcharge vested in a charity or charitable body is made by the owner of the land, and the land charged with the tithe rentcharge, except so far as it consists of an agricultural dwelling-house, consists of agricultural land and buildings, then the Tithe Act, 1925, shall have effect as if for the words 'two-thirds' in subsection (2) of section seventeen thereof (which deals with redemption of lay tithe rentcharge) there were substituted the words 'one-third'.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I recognise the great inconvenience of raising on Report a new and complicated subject; but circumstances which, unfortunately, I could not control made it impossible for me to move the clause which stands in my name at its proper stage, and I hope that the House will accept the expression of my sincere regret and will give their kindly consideration, in spite of its belated appearance, to a clause which has, I believe, both substance and importance. The clause aims at safeguarding the capital values of lay tithe rentcharges which are dedicated to important public services such as education, the relief of sickness, the care of the aged poor and those objects for which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners employ their revenues. All those objects are included in the clause; but I may add that it is primarily on behalf of the ancient educational endowments of Oxford and Cambridge that I am moving this clause.

The clause only operates, like the clause on which it is founded, in the case of the redemption of lay tithe rentcharges on agricultural land; but when it does come into operation—that is to say, in these cases, of redemption—then it protects the capital values of these national funds (for that is what they really are) from the consequences, the direct and necessary consequences, of the Bill now before us. I may say that unless this clause is inserted this Bill offers to landowners an investment at over 7 per cent.—a trustee, first-class security at over 7 per cent. It is enabled to offer that high yield of interest at the expense of the capital values of these ancient endowments. It must be remembered that redemption is compulsory on the tithe-owner at the option of the landowner. Provided the landowner complies with the statutory regulations, the Ministry of Agriculture is bound to approve of the application and the redemption goes through automatically. The tithe-owner has no choice in the matter. He cannot refuse his consent, he cannot bargain as to price, he is himself entirely powerless.

The way these regulations work for the redemption of tithe rentcharge is this. I think I may say I know something about them, because they are included in the schedule of an Act of Parliament for which I was myself responsible. The landowner who wants to redeem is bound to offer to the tithe-owner a sum of money which, invested in Government securities, will produce the same net annual income as the lithe-owner is at present enjoying. Provided he does that the transaction goes through mechanically and automatically. In ascertaining the net annual income of the tithe-owner on which this redemption is based there are three deductions made, one is for rates, the other is for Land Tax and the third is for cost of collection. It is, with the deduction for rates alone that I am dealing now. In ordinary cases, where, the redemption is of tithe issuing from non-agricultural land, there; is a transfer, when the property is transferred, of the whole liability for rates. All the rates that the tithe-owner is paying are transferred to the landowner who buys. The moment the transfer is made, the land out of which the tithe rentcharge issues is re-assessed on the yearly value of the tithe. If a tithe rentcharge of £50 a year issued from land assessed at £200, then, when the transfer is made, the assessment of the land is at once raised to £250.

As long as both the owner and landowner are in the same position in respect to the liabilty for rates, these regulations work equitably and reasonably; but the moment the landowner becomes exempt from rates the position is different. When he was relieved from three-quarters of the rate, the value to him of the property which he was acquiring was immensely enhanced. Yet in calculating the net annual income of the tithe-owner, which was to be the basis of the calculation for redemption, he was still making allowance for the whole of the rates as if he was paying them. He was liable when the transaction was completed for only three-quarters of the rates; but he was deducting from the tithe-owner's income the whole rate. Now in an ordinary business transaction the added commercial value of the tithe rentcharge would have been met by an increase in its capital value; but this was a proceeding under the mechanical rules of the Ministry of Agriculture and it was not possible to make allowance for the enhanced value of the tithe rentcharge and the capital value suffered accordingly.

So convinced was the present Government of the injustice of that position that in the Act of 1925 it made a very important change in the way in which the calculation of the net annual income of the tithe-owner was made. At that time the Crown, for the relief of agriculture, assumed responsibility for three-quarters of the rates and a corresponding proportion of the yearly value of the tithe rentcharge when it was redeemed, and it appeared to the Government that this was; a very unjust proceeding. They therefore proposed a scheme, embodied in Section 17 of the Tithe Act, 1925, which put it right and made it at all events far more reasonable and equitable. They said that, instead of deducting the full rate which the tithe-owner was paying, it was fair and reasonable that only two-thirds of the rate should be taken into calculation. In other words, they added to the capital value of tithe rentcharge the capitalised value of the rate at 22 years' purchase. They equalised, as between landowner and tithe-owner, the advantages which the landowner was gaining from the reduction of rates. That compromise was accepted gratefully by the tithe rentcharge owners, and there for a time the matter rested.

This Bill repeats the conditions which made the old transaction an injustice. It removes the liability of the landowner for rates altogether, and he is now in the position under this Bill, unless we insert this clause, of deducting from the tithe-owners' annual net income two-thirds of a rate of which he pays nothing at all himself. I should have thought that this would have appeared to the Government to be a reproduction, with certain differences, of the position which necessitated its interference in 1925. You have the landowner deducting from the tithe rentcharge two-thirds of a rate for which he is no longer liable, and in consequence he is able, as I say, to obtain an interest on redemption of more than 7 per cent, on a trustee investment at the expense of the tithe rentcharge and the ancient endowments of the Universities of this country.

There is, of course, a certain difference here from the three-quarters of the rates from which agriculture was relieved before 1925; but I may point out that the relief, though it may be slightly different in amount, is as great as, if not greater than, it was before the Act of 1925. Instead of having a precarious relief, dependent on the vote of the House of Commons at the expiration of a certain period, you have a relief that is made as permanent as an Act of Parliament can make it. You have included in your relief all the great industrial interests of this country and you have linked up the weak political interests of agriculture with the great political interests of other industries. Further, the proportion of the rates to which the landowner was left liable by the Act of 1925 was not, of course, fixed in amount. It was liable to rise, and would have risen, with the rise of the rates and, therefore, the injustice which under this Bill is done to the owner of these tithe rentcharges on agricultural land is, I submit to your Lordships, just as great as before the Act of 1925. In the Act of 1925 the Minister of Agriculture himself recognised the injustice, and in moving the Tithe Bill he expressly referred to it. He stated at length what he was going to do to meet the injustice, and he did meet it by the proposition that, instead of the full rate, only two-thirds should be deducted.

What I ask the present Government—and it is the same Government as was in office in 1925—is that it shall again come forward to remedy what I think I have shown is a great injustice, and I ask it to say that for the future not two-thirds of the rates but one-third of the rates only should be deducted. It is a fair compromise, and it seems to me it leaves to the owner a property which is advanced in value to the extent of one-third of the rate which he no longer pays, and if, as I understand, this proposition is going to be opposed on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to know how the Minister of Agriculture can distinguish his action in 1925 from his refusal to act in 1929. The same conditions have occurred, the same injustice will be suffered and a similar remedy is what we ask to be applied. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 41, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ernle.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I rise not to take part in this discussion on tithes, which is a subject that I do not profess fully to understand, but to note with satisfaction that the noble Lord, in the course of his speech, spoke four or five times of the greatly enhanced value to landowners by reason of these derating proposals. We had similar testimony from the Earl of Halsbury the other day, and it is a matter of great gratification to us to find two noble Lords opposite bearing out what we have contended, that this derating is, in essence, a present to the landlord and not a gift to the tenant.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I would like to apologise to Lord Ernle for what he may have thought an unseemly interruption, but many of us thought that Lord Fortescue's Amendment would run for a considerable time, as the Leader of the House said it was of importance. Unfortunately, the Government have jumped the time in a most adroit manner, and several of us who had Amendments on the Paper have lost our opportunity of moving them. At the same time, I should like to add that I have listened to Lord Ernie's speech, and that I came down not to interrupt but to support him, because I received an interesting letter from the bursar of my old college at Oxford, which is a very poor college, asking me to support Lord Ernie's Amendment. We all know that unfortunately in this country the Universities, instead of being rich, are very poor, and certain colleges also suffer from want of revenue. I am told that if this clause, moved in such a lucid manner, is not accepted by the Government, a great deal of harm will result to the colleges and Universities, because a portion of their money is invested in land.

As regards what my noble friend Lord Russell said about landlords, we on this side know very well that if we benefit the holders of agricultural land it is a good thing for the country as a whole, because we must all admit that anything which benefits the land will benefit the people who earn their living on the land. Therefore I am delighted to think that this Bill is going to benefit the greatest industry of all, that of agriculture, which the Parties opposite, in spite of their quack remedies, have not always tried to benefit in the way that might be expected.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My Lords, as I had the duty of piloting the Tithe Bill on behalf of His Majesty's Government through your Lordships' House, I should like to express my grave apprehensions as to what might be the result of accepting such an Amendment as this, in view of the fact that, after very considerable discussion between all parties interested in the matter of tithe, whether ecclesiastical or lay, and whether as tithe-payers or tithe-owners, there was then, in 1925, a definite settlement arrived at. That settlement, so far as ecclesiastical tithe was concerned, taking into account a sinking fund, was to operate for a period of about eighty years, and so far as lay tithe was concerned, which includes the sort of tithe to which Lord Ernie referred, was to operate in perpetuity. If by a side wind on a Bill such as this—to which, I am bound to say, it does not seem to me to be exactly relevant—you try to vary that definite and, as we believed, perpetual settlement, in favour of any particular class, tithe-owner or tithe-payer, I think you are manufacturing difficulties which may constitute a very serious precedent in days to come.

We thought then, and, so far as landowners are concerned, we shall continue to think, that the tithe question was settled once and for all, and there is no reason whatever, either in equity or in principle, why the derating of agricultural land, which is sought to be carried out through this Bill, should throw upon the landowner an additional charge in respect of tithe redemption. Lord Ernie made a most eloquent appeal to your Lordships' House to exactly the same effect when the Tithe Bill was before you—and that was a much more relevant occasion—but he failed on that occasion to convince your Lordships. I hope you are not going to allow this concession to be made by a side wind to lay tithe-owners, on the ground that some of them are either charities or charitable bodies. I think you are going to find it extremely difficult to define what a charity or charitable body is for the purposes of this provision which my noble friend seeks to incorporate in this Bill. I hope in those circumstances that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment or allow it to be incorporated in the Bill.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, we should all of us like to do anything we could to assist charitable bodies difficult as the definition may be, as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe pointed out; but this is a Bill to reform local government and to abolish an antiquated system of taxation in the form of the present system of rating. It is not to alter the Tithe Act, which as my noble friend points out, was the subject of much discussion in your Lordships' House and another place, and as he has told us, because he was in charge of the Bill and therefore knows all about it, it was accepted at that time as a definite settlement. We are asked in this Bill, which is not relevant to tithes, except in regard to one or two Amendments consequential on the repeal of other Acts like that of 1896, to make a definite change in the law regarding tithes. The noble Lord who proposed the Amendment, in a very able and interesting speech, explained to your Lordships how the law in regard to tithes works. He tells you that on non-agricultural land the full deduction on redemption for rates should be made but that on agricultural land the owner is only allowed to charge two-thirds.

The noble Lord in this Amendment seeks to give to a lay tithe rentcharge vested in a charity or charitable body the advantage of only having half of that, one-third instead of two-thirds. The effect of Section 17 of the Tithe Act, 1925, was to ensure a tithe-owner receiving more in respect of agricultural land than the net annual income which he had been receiving from his tithe rentcharge. Is there really any justification for a charity, or any other owner indeed, having more than the sum given him under the Tithe Act, 1925, which, as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe said, was accepted at the time after very long debate as a definite settlement? Is there really any justification for such a lay owner receiving more than was given him in that Act? That would be definitely penalising the owner of agricultural land in that respect. It would fall with great heaviness upon the owner of agricultural land because the tithe rentcharge happened to be invested in a charity. I venture to hope that not only on its merits but also for the reason that this is not a Tithe Reform Bill, your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 71:

Adaptation of enactments imposing limits on expenditure of local authorities.

71.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, any provision of any enactment imposing a limit upon the expenditure of a local authority for any purpose in any year by reference to any specified rate poundage shall, as from the appointed day, have effect as if for the limit thereby imposed there were substituted such a limit as would be imposed if the specified rate poundage were increased by thirty-three and one-third percent, or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow.

LORD ASKWITH moved, towards the end of subsection (1), before "in any special case allow" to insert "by order". The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Halsbury, in order that there may be some record.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 6, after ("may") insert ("by order").—(Lord Askwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 7, at end insert "(2) An Order under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made".—(The Earl of onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 81 [Discontinuance of grants]:

Amendments moved—

Page 65, line 28, after ("as") insert ("having regard to the Exchequer grants payable under this Part of this Act")

Page 65, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("having regard to the Exchequer grants payable under this Part of this Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 87 [Compensation for losses on account of special and parish rates]:

Amendment moved— Page 70, line 26, leave out ("leviable") and insert ("levied").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 91 [Additional Exchequer grants to county boroughs]:

Amendments moved—

Page 73, line 13, leave out from the beginning to ("shall") in line 15, and insert ("section eighty-five of this Act")

Page 73, line 26, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 99 [Power to reduce grants]:

Amendment moved— Page 79, line 27, leave out from the first ("services") to ("regard") in line 30.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Buxton I do not wish to move the Amendment standing in his name to this clause, but I desire to take this opportunity of saying that, not having moved it on Report stage, my noble friend has no intention of moving it on Third Reading. It is rather an abuse of the privileges of your Lordships' House that if a Peer is not here on Report stage he should take the opportunity of moving Amendments on Third Reading. On behalf of my noble friend I wish to say he does not desire to take advantage of that privilege of your Lordships' House, and I hope that other members will do likewise.

Clause 100 [Application of Exchequer grants, &c.]:

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 14, leave out ("licences") and insert ("licence duties").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 101 [Power of Minister to pay council's contributions to voluntary associations out of sums payable as General Exchequer Grant.]:

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 20, leave out from ("services") to the end of line 22.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 103:

Power to make regulations.

103.—(1) The Minister may make regulations for giving effect to the provisions of this Part of this Act and in particular— (c) as to the manner in which, subject to the express provisions of this Part of this Act, any calculation or estimate is to be made for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and as to the authority or per- son by or to whom any information required for the purposes of any such calculation or estimate is to be given, and as to the time at which and the form in which it is to be given; and, in particular, the regulations as to the manner in which expenditure falling to be borne by rules is to be calculated or estimated may provide for such adjustment as may be necessary to correct any abnormal treatment of income or expenditure in accounts; and

THE EARL OF ON SLOW moved, in paragraph (c), after "may," to insert "provide for that expenditure being taken in appropriate cases to be the amount of the payments made in any year and may." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is proposed in order to remove any possible doubt that local authorities who have kept their accounts on a receipts and payment basis will not be required for the purpose of the calculation of grant to reconstruct them on an income and expenditure basis. The actual account kept will be used for the purpose of calculations and estimates to be made under the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 32, after ("may") insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 107 [Provisions an to rates and precepts and grants in respect of lost of rates during transitory period]:

Amendment moved— Page 84, line 34, leave out from ("area") to the end of line 35, and insert ("from time to time had been calculated in accordance with the enactments which were in force immediately before the commencement of this Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 109:

Mitigation of liability of councils for temporary loans raised under 11 and 12 Geo. 5. c. 67.

109.—(1) For the purpose of affording relief to the councils of counties find county boroughs to whom liabilities in respect of loans (including overdrafts) raised by poor law authorities under section three of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921 (as amended by any subsequent enactment) are transferred under this Act, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to such loans— (d) if in the case of any council the amount, which under the foregoing provisions of this section, would have been payable by the council in any year in respect of sums so certified by the Minister if all of those sums had been on account of loans made by the Minister, exceeds the amount which would be produced by a rate of ninepence in the pound levied on the reduced rateable value of the county or county borough, the amount payable in that year by the council to the Minister under this section shall be reduced by the amount of the excess;

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (1), after the second "Minister" to insert "and had been repayable by means of an annuity equal to one-fifteenth part of the certified sum" The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made in the clause in Committee on the motion of Lord Arnold. I promised that if there was anything consequential it should be seen to.

Amendment moved— Page 88, line 11, after ("Minister") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112 [Transfer of road property and, liabilities]:

Amendment moved— Page 93, line 10, leave out ("the county") and insert ("another").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 114 [Transfer of poor Law officers]:

EARL RUSSELL had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the following new clause: Where any officer of any local authority holds office under a written agreement with the authority, such agreement shall be valid and binding on both parties notwithstanding any statutory or other provision to the contrary.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I called attention to this matter on Second Reading and I had put down an Amendment for Committee stage. It was thought that it would be convenient not to move it then in the hope that some settlement might be arrived at. I will remind your Lordships of what the matter is. There was a judgment of Mr. Justice McCardie in a case of the Dagenham Urban District Council and another judgment in the case of another local authority, which startled people a good deal by laying it down that a very large class of the servants of local authorities held their appointments at pleasure in the same way as Government servants do, and that whether they had either a minute appointing them for a term, or, according to the judgment, even if they had an agreement under seal, still the Statute provided that their offices were held at pleasure. They were therefore liable to immediate dismissal without notice and without reason.

Your Lordships will not be surprised that that created a good deal of consternation among the servants of local authorities affected. As I pointed out on Second Reading, insecurity of tenure is a very bad thing for getting good servants, and it would put these people in an unfortunate position and probably lead to your not getting such good servants of local authorities as you would have if security of tenure were to continue. I was in hopes that the matter might be put right by some fairly simple clause like the clause which appears on the Paper, which would simply provide that if a written agreement had been made by a local authority that agreement should be effective no matter what any Statute said to the contrary. I have, however, discussed the matter with the Minister and I understand that those specially interested and specially affected have made representations to the Ministry and that the matter is under consideration. In their view it is not quite so simple and cannot be settled without a good deal of further consideration. In those circumstances I would ask the noble Earl whether he can say that the Ministry recognise the very serious position that has been created, that they will Very carefully consider the situation and that, though they cannot apparently do it in this Bill, we may at some future stage hope to have it put right.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have had the opportunity of communicating with my right hon. friend the Minister of Health with regard to the situation to which the noble Earl has called attention. For the reasons which he has given I think the Amendment in the form which is on the Paper would not quite do, and those with whom he has been in communication are of the same opinion. The case to which he has referred is still, I believe, sub judice. It is not certain yet whether it is going to the Court of Appeal, but I understand from my right hon. friend that, provided there is not an appeal and provided that the thing is finally determined, he has already arranged to receive a deputation from the National Association of Local Government Officers to discuss the position to which that decision gives rise, and to consider what is the right course to pursue. In those circumstances I understand the noble Earl does not wish to press the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I merely wanted to make sure that the matter was not lost sight of.

Clause 119:

Superannuation of transferred poor Jaw officers.

(2) As respects any such officers as aforesaid who, having been so transferred to the service of a council who at the appointed day have a superannuation scheme, do not give notice in accordance with the provisions of tile last foregoing subsection, the provisions of the Act of 1896 shall cease to apply and the following provisions shall have effect:— (a) in the case of officers transferred to the service of a council who have, on or before the appointed day, adopted the Local Government and other Officers' (Superannuation) Act. 1922 (in this section referred to as "the Act of 1922"), whether alone or in combination with any other local authority, the provisions of the Act of 1922 shall apply to them while in that service, subject to the following modifications:—

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "service," to insert "or in any service in which the said provisions continue to apply to them by virtue of Section eight of the said Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment and of the next Amendment is to secure that an officer who is transferred to a council who have adopted the Act of 1922 and who does not elect to remain under the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, will continue to have the benefit of the Act of 1922. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 99, line 26, after ("service") insert ("or in any service in which the said provisions continue to apply to them by virtue of section eight of the said Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 100, line 15, at end, insert:— ("(iv) subsection (1) of section eight of the Act of 1922 shall have effect as if the words 'a designated post in' were omitted therefrom").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 123 [Expenses and borrowing]:

Amendments moved—

Page 105, line 17, leave out ("county of London") and insert ("London County Council")

Page 105, line 21, after ("county") insert ("council").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 125:

Power to remove difficulties.

125.—(1) If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act to any exceptional area, or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make such order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary for carrying the order into effect:

Provided that the Minister shall not exercise the powers conferred by tins section after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty.

(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.

(3) In this section the expression "exceptional area" includes any poor law area which is not wholly comprised within one county or county borough, any district which is not wholly comprised within one county, or which is administered by the council of an adjoining district in another county, any parish which is not wholly comprised within one county, county borough or district, or which is not within the same district for municipal and sanitary purposes, and any area which enjoys or is subject to any special privilege, exemption or liability in respect of rating or valuation.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "section," to insert "shall come into operation upon the date specified therein in that behalf, but." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises from a promise I gave your Lordships in the course of the debate on the Committee stage. It arose under what was then Clause 123 and has since become Clause 125. Your Lordships will remember that I then stated on behalf of the Government that we were quite willing to change the way in which the matter was to be brought before Parliament in the case of the exercise of these transitory powers by the Minister of Health by providing for an affirmative Resolution to be carried within three months after Parliament first met after the date when any Order was made. The Amendments which we have put down to Clause 125 are Amendments designed to carry that into effect.

Amendment moved— Page 106, line 24, after ("section") insert ("shall come into operation upon the date specified therein in that behalf, but").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD ASKWITH

My Lords, I was the mover of the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord promised to put down again in a different form and I thank him for having done so. I may say that I and those who were very anxious that this should be passed are satisfied with the Amendment and agree to his suggestion.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, few members of your Lordships' House, except perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, feel more strongly than I do about the danger of bureaucratic government and the danger of government by Ministerial orders and therefore I looked at this clause with suspicion. I am bound also to say that I did not go quite as far as some of my friends because one has to go by common sense in these matters. When I looked at the Bill and saw the complexity of it and the number of things to be adjusted, I asked myself what I would feel if I were Minister of Health and had to administer it. I am bound to admit that one would want some sort of Stuart dispensing power. It is not unreasonable to take some power of this kind to deal with difficulties not foreseen at the time. The Amendments go as far as one can to assure the control of Parliament. They provide by an affirmative Resolution for complete control over the matter while at the same time avoiding delay.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to add to subsection (2):— and shall cease to have effect upon the expiration of a period of three months from the date upon which it came into operation unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament: Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 126 [Provisions as to orders, schemes, and regulations]:

Amendment moved— Page 107, line 22, after the second ("order") insert ("made under the last foregoing section or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 127 [Transitory provisions and adaptation of enactments]:

Amendments moved—

Page 107, line 40, leave out ("as from the appointed day")

Page 107, line 41, at end insert ("and the said adaptations shall, save as in that Schedule otherwise expressly provided, come into operation as from the appointed day").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 129 [Definitions]:

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on Clause 99.

Amendment moved— Page 111, line 10, at end insert ("'Public health services' includes services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy and mental deficiency, and the welfare of the blind").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 130:

Declaration of intention as to future increases of local expenditure.

130. It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that, in the event of substantial additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public health or other service after the commencement of this Act, provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament.

LORD ASKWITH had Amendments on the Paper to move to leave out "substantial" and, after "expenditure," to insert "other than of a trivial nature." The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments are to take out the word "substantial," which is a very difficult word to deal with, and substitute "expenditure other than of a trivial nature." Who is to say what is a substantial amount or what is the relevant value of substantial expenditure? It is far more likely to lead to controversy compared with the words I suggest—namely "additional expenditure other than of a trivial nature." You do not want bother over the price of one or two railway tickets. It is much more easy to settle what is trivial than to settle what is substantial.

Amendment moved— Page 113, line 18, leave out ("substantial").—(Lord Askwith.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I find it a little difficult to accept this word instead of "substantial." Some adjective is admittedly necessary and there must be some definite burden imposed on the local authorities before increased contributions are to be considered. If "material" would meet the wishes of my noble friend I would accept that.

LORD ASKWITH

I will accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 113, line 18, leave out ("substantial") and insert ("material").—(Lord Askwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule:

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I have three drafting Amendments to this Schedule.

Amendments moved—

Page 125, line 25, after ("sanatoria") insert ("or other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis")

Page 125, line 45, at end insert ("and the appropriate proportion of the loss on account of grants of the receiver for the metropolitan police district")

Page 127, line 36, after ("apportionments") insert ("(exclusive of any sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to make good a deficiency in any such apportionment)").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Eighth Schedule: